The Ann Arbor city council’s first meeting of the fiscal year is also the next-to-last one before the Aug. 5, 2014 primary elections for city council and mayor.

The sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chamber includes Braille.

A month before the dog days actually begin, the council will be considering as part of its July 7 agenda a resolution that would pay Washtenaw County $135,570 for animal control services. The county in turn contracts with the Humane Society of Huron Valley for those services. This is a new arrangement, based on recommendations from a 2012 county task force. The idea is that local governments in the county with their own dog licensing programs, which generate revenue through licensing, should shoulder part of the cost of the county’s animal control contract. Ann Arbor has its own dog licensing program.

The July 7 agenda is heavy with items related to infrastructure. Three special assessments for the construction of new sidewalks are on the agenda for final approval: Stone School Road, Barton Drive and Scio Church Road. And the council will be considering approval of contracts for street repair associated with utilities work, the replacement of a clarifier at the drinking water treatment plan, the replacement of liners for the swimming pools at Buhr and Fuller parks, and for monitoring work at the now-dormant Ann Arbor city landfill.

Several development items also appear on the July 7 agenda. The rezoning of three Ann Arbor Housing Commission (AAHC) properties will be given final consideration in connection with major renovations and improvements the commission is making to its inventory – at Baker Commons, Green/Baxter Court Apartments, and Maple Meadows. Initial approval for rezoning of another AAHC property is also on the council’s agenda: North Maple Estates.

In addition to the AAHC properties, the council will consider rezoning for parcels on Research Park Drive, in the southern part of the city, and a site plan for the expansion of Rudolf Steiner High School on the city’s north side.

The council will give initial consideration to changes in the ordinance that defines how city boards and commissions are appointed – changes that focus on the environmental commission. The changes involve clarifications of the nomination process and other housekeeping issues. The council will also consider confirmation of three appointments to the environmental commission: Allison Skinner, Benjamin Muth and Mark Clevey.

The summertime theme of the agenda is reflected in the approval of temporary outdoor sales and consumption of alcohol for several downtown businesses during the art fairs, which run from July 16-19. A permanent liquor license for Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse also appears on the council’s agenda. The theme of transition from summer to fall is reflected on the council’s July 7 agenda in the set of street closing approvals, which include closings around the University of Michigan stadium for home football games.

This article includes a more detailed preview of many of these agenda items. More details on other agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. The meeting proceedings can be followed Monday evening live on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network starting at 7 p.m.

The Chronicle will be filing live updates from city council chambers during the meeting, published in this article below the preview material. Click here to skip the preview section and go directly to the live updates. The meeting is scheduled to start at 7 p.m.

Animal (Dog) Control Services

The council will be considering a $135,570 agreement between the city of Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County for animal control services.

Background to the city’s agreement includes a long process of discussions and negotiations between Washtenaw County and the Humane Society of Huron Valley (HSHV) – a conversation that began in 2011 when the amount of funding provided to HSHV was under scrutiny. A task force was appointed, and ultimately the county board of commissioners, at its Nov. 7, 2012 meeting, authorized contracting with HSHV for $500,000 a year for animal control services. [.pdf of contract between Washtenaw County and HSHV]

Recommended as a part of that task force report was for the county to pursue a cost-sharing arrangement with those municipalities in the county that collect licensing fees for animals. The city of Ann Arbor is one such municipality in the county. From the task force report:

Cost Sharing with Local Governments
Between 45 and 65 percent of the animals at the Humane Society come from jurisdictions with their own animal control ordinances or licensing programs. While the County would bear responsibility for stray dogs in those jurisdictions absent a controlling ordinance, it would also collect licensing fees from pet owners in those communities. The current system, however, drives costs to the County without providing direct revenues to offset them. The Task Force recommends that the County reach out to the communities whose ordinances either exceed the scope of the County animal control policy or that capture licensing fees, and develop a cost sharing agreement with those local governments to offset increases driven by local ordinance requirements. [.pdf of 2012 task force report]

Cited in the council’s July 7 resolution as the cost of public animal control countywide is $951,793. The assignment of $135,570 of that cost to the city of Ann Arbor is based on the proportion of dogs that come from Ann Arbor that are housed at HSHV, factoring in the $500,000 provided to the HSHV by Washtenaw County.

The city council’s approved FY 2015 budget had already included $105,000 for such animal control services. Increased dog licensing revenue is projected to fund the remaining $32,570, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution.

The city council’s FY 2015 budget deliberations on May 19 , 2014 resulted in two amendments that affected funding for animal control services. One was an amendment that re-allocated $75,000 for a commercial sign inventory to animal control, including deer herd management. The other was an amendment that adjusted the revenue budget upwards to reflect an assumed 30% participation rate for dog licensing in the city – which would be a total of about $63,000. That’s $48,000 more than the actual amount up to now, with the idea being that a publicity campaign could increase participation in the licensing program. The additional revenue is to be put towards animal control.

Infrastructure: Sidewalk Special Assessments

At its July 7 meeting, the city council will consider the final vote on the special assessment of property owners to help pay for construction of three different sidewalks – on Stone School Road, Barton Drive and Scio Church Road.

The new sidewalk on Stone School Road will be on the west side of the road. This work will be done in conjunction with the Stone School Road reconstruction project from I-94 to Ellsworth Road. The total sidewalk project cost is roughly $128,500, of which about $55,000 will be special assessed. A public hearing on the special assessment will also take place at the council’s July 7 meeting.

The Barton Drive sidewalk project will extend eastward from Bandemer Park at Longshore Drive. The cost of the Barton Drive sidewalk has been calculated to be $80,606. Of that, about $36,000 will be paid from federal surface transportation funds. Of the remaining $44,606, the city’s general fund would pay $42,626, leaving just $1,980 to be paid through the special assessment.

For the Scio Church sidewalk project, the total cost is expected to be $365,100. Of that, about $164,000 will be paid from a federal surface transportation grant. The remaining $201,100 will be paid out of the city’s general fund and by the special assessment of just $1,626.

Infrastructure: Public Services Contracts

Several contracts appear on the council’s July 7 agenda that are related to infrastructure maintenance and repair. The council will be considering a $344,600 contract with Cadillac Asphalt LLC for repair of streets after water mains, storm and sanitary sewers are repaired. The city’s public services area does not have the equipment or the staff to perform these types of street repairs, which often involve the replacement of the concrete base or the concrete street surface, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution.

The city council will also consider awarding a $175,000 contract to replace a clarifier drive in the drinking water treatment plant – to Titus Welding Company. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the drive to be replaced is original to the plant and was installed in 1965. It had an expected life of 30 years. It has begun to show signs of failure, included seizing, high vibration, and bearing failure. The drive has been assessed by the manufacturer and it has been determined that it is not cost-effective to repair, according to the memo.

The council will also consider a $205,055 contract with Renosys Corp. to install PVC pool liners at Buhr and Fuller pools. The city is switching to PVC from Marcite, which is, according to a staff memo, a “cementitous product that covers the pool shell creating a smooth and waterproof surface.” The new product has a smoother surface, and won’t require the yearly patching required due to harsh winters and wear and tear on the pool, according to the staff memo.

The council will consider a $80,836 contract amendment with Tetra Tech Inc. for environmental consulting services at the now-closed Ann Arbor landfill. That brings the total amount on the contract to $624,221. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, for several years the landfill has had a plume of 1-4 dioxane and vinyl chloride contamination offsite primarily in Southeast Area Park, northeast of the landfill. A slurry wall was constructed along most of the boundary of the landfill to eliminate groundwater passing through the landfill, and three purge wells were used to attempt to capture the offsite contamination.

Also on the July 7 agenda is a resolution for $125,000 contracts with Stantec Consulting Michigan Inc. and Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber Inc. for general civil engineering and surveying services. Those services include a range of activities, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution: design and management of capital improvement projects; private development construction plan review; private development utility and road construction inspection; traffic engineering; civil engineering design; construction inspection; drafting; and surveying.

Development

On the council’s agenda are a number of rezoning requests and site plans associated with new development in the city.

Development: Research Park Drive – Rezoning, Recreation

On the city council’s July 7 agenda for initial consideration is the rezoning of six sites along Research Park Drive – from RE (research district) to ORL (office/research/limited industrial district). Related to that rezoning, the council will be asked to give initial approval to amendments to the city’s zoning code to allow outdoor recreation as a special exception use in the ORL zoning district.

The six lots are undeveloped and total 16.6 acres. Four of the lots, on the southern end of the site, are owned by Qubit Corp. LLC; BMS Holdings LLC owns the northern two sites.

A proposed area plan – which is less detailed than a site plan – includes an indoor-outdoor tennis facility on one of the lots. It also includes five two-story buildings that could accommodate office, research, and limited industrial uses on the remaining lots, each with their own parking lot and access point to Research Park Drive.

Prior to construction, the project must go through the city’s site plan approval process, which might require a traffic impact study.

Only the initial rezoning and the amendment allowing recreation as a special exception use will be in front of the council at its July 7 meeting. The planning commission recommended support of both actions at its June 3, 2014 meeting.

Aerial view showing Research Park Drive parcels.

Area plan for four sites in a proposed development on Research Park Drive. The image is oriented with east at the top.

Development: Rudolf Steiner Site Plan

On the July 7 city council agenda is the approval of a site plan for the expansion of the Rudolf Steiner High School. The private school is located at 2230 Pontiac Trail, north of Brookside. The planning commission had recommended approval of the site plan at its June 3, 2014 meeting.

The project – estimated to cost $2.5 million – involves building a one-story, 19,780-square-foot addition to the existing classroom building. The structure will include a 9,990-square-foot gym, with the remaining 9,790 square feet used for classrooms and storage.

According to the staff memo, an existing Quonset hut on the east side of the site will be removed, as will a 48-inch white oak tree immediately east of the proposed addition. The school will be required to plant 12 trees for mitigation. In addition, 17 new trees will be planted as part of the project.

Parking will be increased by 31 spaces to accommodate special events and discourage parking in nearby neighborhoods, according to the staff memo. A total of 32 bicycle parking spaces will be provided near the north entry to the new addition. No additional enrollment beyond the previously approved 120 students is proposed. The school has operated at that location since 2002.

Site plan for Rudolf Steiner High School expansion. The yellow section is the existing building. The white section indicates the proposed addition.

At their June 3 meeting, planning commissioners approved a special exception use for the project. That’s required under Chapter 55 of the city’s zoning code because the site is zoned R1D (single family dwelling). Private schools are allowed within that zoning district, if granted a special exception use. The planning commission has discretion to grant a special exception use, which does not require additional city council approval.

Development: AAHC Rezoning Final Approvals

On the council’s agenda for July 7 is the final approval to the rezoning of three Ann Arbor Housing Commission properties that have been given initial approval by the city council. The planning commission had recommended the rezonings at its May 6, 2014 meeting. Initial city council action came at its June 2, 2014 meeting.

The current PL (public land) zoning for some of the properties is a vestige of the AAHC properties’ status as city-owned land. The city council approved the transfer of deeds to the AAHC at its June 2, 2013 meeting. The three sites given initial rezoning approval on June 2, 2014 are part of the housing commission’s major initiative to upgrade the city’s public housing units by seeking private investors through low-income housing tax credits.

Rezoning is in progress for the following public housing sites, two of which are currently zoned as public land:

• Baker Commons: Rezone public land to D2 (downtown interface). The 0.94-acre lot is located at 106 Packard Street, at the intersection with South Main, in Ward 5. It includes a 64-unit apartment building.
• Green/Baxter Court Apartments: Rezone public land to R4A (multi-family dwelling district). The 2-acre site is located at 1701-1747 Green Road and contains 23 apartments in four buildings and a community center. It’s in Ward 2.
• Maple Meadows: Currently zoned R1C (single-family dwelling district), the recommendation is to rezone it as R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The site is 3.4 acres at 800-890 South Maple Road and contains 29 apartments in five buildings and a community center. It’s located in Ward 5.

At the planning commission’s May 6 meeting, AAHC director Jennifer Hall explained that PL zoning doesn’t allow housing to be built on a parcel. As AAHC seeks private funding to rehab its properties, it needs to ensure if a building burns down, for example, it could be rebuilt. In general that’s why the rezoning is being requested. It’s also being requested to align the zoning with the current uses of the property. She stressed that the highest priority properties to be rezoned are Baker Commons, Green/Baxter and Maple Meadows, because investors have already been found to renovate those sites.

For these three sites, planning commissioners also voted to waive the area plan requirements for the AAHC rezoning petitions, because no new construction is proposed and surveys of the improvements have been provided.

For additional background on the AAHC process of renovating its properties, see Chronicle coverage: “Public Housing Conversion Takes Next Step.”

Development: AAHC – Appointment

Also at its July 7 meeting, the council will be asked to confirm the appointment of Audrey Wojtkowiak to the board of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, to fill the vacancy of Christopher Geer. Wojtkowiak’s nomination was made at the council’s June 16 meeting. She’s controller for the Consolidation Center at Detroit Diesel.

Development: AAHC – North Maple Rezoning

On the council’s July 7 agenda is initial consideration of rezoning that’s necessary for a renovation project to be undertaken by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission for a site on North Maple.

Aerial view of North Maple Estates site, outlined in green.

The council will be asked to give initial approval to rezoning the 4.8-acre site at 701 N. Maple Road – from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district).

The planning commission had recommended the rezoning at its June 17, 2014 meeting after postponing it on June 3, 2014.

The site is on the west side of North Maple, between Dexter Avenue and Hollywood Drive. [.pdf of staff report]

The site plan calls for demolishing 20 existing single-family homes – the public housing complex known as North Maple Estates – and constructing an eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex with a total of 138 bedrooms. The units range in size from one bedroom to five bedrooms. The project would include a playground, community building and 73 parking spaces. According to a staff memo, the buildings would be located along a T-shaped driveway that connects to North Maple Road and Dexter Avenue. The drive extends northward toward Vine Court but does not connect with that street. There would be a new connection to Dexter Avenue through the remaining, undeveloped length of Seybold Drive.

The project will require the city to vacate a portion of the right-of-way for Seybold Drive. The surrounding land is owned by the housing commission, so if the right-of-way vacation is approved, the land would become part of the housing commission property.

The site plan will not be in front of the city council on July 7. Only the initial rezoning approval and a resolution of intent to vacate right-of-way for Seybold Drive appear on the agenda. That resolution of intent sets a public hearing for Aug. 18, 2014 – the same council meeting when a vote will be taken on the vacation’s approval. The rezoning will also need a second vote of approval from the council at a future meeting.

Planning staff noted three issues that need to be resolved before the project gets approval from city council:

The parcel containing two duplex buildings also owned by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission in the northeast corner of the site must be combined with the subject site, forming a single parcel as a requirement for issuance of any permits.

The legal description and comparison chart data must be confirmed to include the duplex parcel.

The northern-most parking stall, nearest the connection to Vine Court, must be relocated outside of the minimum front setback area.

According to the staff memo, after the planning commission’s June 3 meeting the city’s traffic engineer reviewed the proposed new connection from Seybold Drive onto Dexter Avenue, and concluded that sight distances from all approaches are acceptable. He suggested that the pavement markings on Dexter should be refreshed.

The reconstruction of North Maple Estates is part of an ongoing effort by the housing commission to upgrade the city’s housing stock for low-income residents. At the planning commission’s May 6, 2014 meeting, AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall had made a presentation about the initiative, which includes seeking private investors through low-income housing tax credits.

Environmental Commission

The city’s environmental commission appears in two different agenda items – one that amends the city ordinance establishing the commission, and another that nominates additional members to the commission.

Environmental Commission: Ordinance Change

The council will be giving initial consideration to a change to the city ordinance that regulates how appointments are made to the environmental commission (EC). The EC is one of the few boards or commission in the city for which the mayor does not make nominations. The more familiar procedure – for most boards and commissions – includes a mayoral nomination at one council meeting, followed by the confirmation vote of the council at a subsequent meeting.

In the past, the council has mimicked this procedure for the EC by having some councilmember put a resolution on the agenda appointing a member to the EC, and then postponing the resolution until the next meeting. The ordinance revisions clarify that the nominations put forward by the council as a body to the EC are to be made by the two councilmembers who serve as the council’s representatives to the EC.

Besides two slots for council representatives, the EC includes positions for members of the planning commission, park advisory commission, and energy commission. The ordinance revision that the council will be considering on July 7 makes clear that those groups make their appointments to the EC without further city council approval. This specific revision comes after the planning commission had selected Kirk Westphal from its membership to serve on the EC earlier this year, and some councilmembers voted against his confirmation, when the council was asked to confirm his selection two months ago. For background on that vote, see “Hutton, Westphal Reappointed to EC.”

The staff memo summarizes the changes to the ordinance regulating appointments to boards and commissions as follows:

• clarifies that the councilmembers currently serving on the environmental commission nominate persons for “at-large” appointments, which are then approved by council resolution;
• clarifies that the planning commission, park advisory commission, and energy commission each designate a representative to the environmental commission without council approval and for a one-year term;
• clarifies that the 3-year terms should be equally staggered;
• removes references to the Leslie Science Center Advisory Board, which no longer exists;
• requires the city administrator or the designated support staff of the environmental commission to notify council of vacancies – previously this was delegated to the clerk’s office, which does not always have immediate knowledge of vacancies;
• contains a few minor, non-substantive corrections and clarifications.

If the council gives the ordinance amendment initial approval on July 7, it would still need a second and final vote at a subsequent meeting, in order to be enacted.

Environmental Commission: Appointments

Also on the agenda are confirmation of three nominations to the EC, which were announced at the council’s June 16, 2014 meeting: Allison Skinner, Benjamin Muth and Mark Clevey.

Clevey is the representative to the EC selected by the energy commission, so this confirmation will not follow the ordinance amendment for which the council will be asked to give initial approval on July 7.

Liquor

At its July 7 meeting, the city council will be considering two items related to serving alcohol. One is an item that would allow several downtown businesses to serve alcohol outdoors during the Ann Arbor art fairs, to be held July 16-19 this year:
Knight’s Restaurant (600 E. Liberty St.), Michigan Theater (603 E. Liberty St.), Neopapalis (500 E. William St.), Cottage Inn (508-512 E. William St.), New York Pizza Depot (605 E. William St.), Ashley’s Restaurant (338 S. State St.), Red Hawk Bar & Grill (316 S. State St.), and Pizza House (618 Church).

The second item is a downtown development liquor license for Ruth’s Chris Steak House. The council approved the site plan for Ruth’s Chris – to be located on Fourth Avenue between William and Liberty – at its June 2, 2014 meeting.

Street Closings

The consent agenda includes approvals of street closings for special events, which provide a window into what’s happening in the coming weeks. Events with street closings on the July 7 city council agenda include:

• Electric Bolt 8K Run/Walk (July 27, 2014): Various streets from 6-10 a.m.
• Cleats and Beats (Aug. 1, 2014): These street closures would be on S. Main from E. William to Huron, on Liberty from S. Ashley to S. Fourth, and on Washington from S. Ashley to the alley by the parking structure. This is sponsored by the Ann Arbor Convention and Visitors Bureau. It appears to be a different event than the Eats, Beats and Cleats event for which the council unanimously rejected a street closure request last year. That was proposed to take place in a South University neighborhood with a lot of student housing.
• Relevent Sports International Champions Cup Soccer Game (Aug. 2, 2014). Various streets around Michigan Stadium for three hours prior to the start of the game.
• University of Michigan football games (2014 Season): Various streets around Michigan Stadium for three hours prior to the start of each home football game.
• Dancing in the Streets (Aug. 31, 2014): S. Main between Huron and Liberty, and Washington between S. Ashley and the alley on E. Washington toward S. Fourth Avenue, from 11 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.

-

3:56 p.m. People who are signed up for public commentary reserved time are now listed on the agenda. Three people are signed up to talk about U.S.-Israel foreign policy: Mozhgan Savabiehsfahani, Blaine Coleman and Henry Herskovitz. Jeff Hayner is signed up to talk about the Barton Drive sidewalk special assessment. Kermit Schlansker is signed up to call for stopping construction of houses. Changming Fan is signed up to talk about the local development finance authority and job creation. Carolyn Grawi is signed up to talk about the Research Park Drive rezoning item. And Thomas Partridge is signed up to talk about electing Mark Schauer for governor, affordable housing, human rights and transportation.

4:20 p.m. The staff responses to councilmember questions about agenda items are now available [.pdf of July 7, 2014 staff written responses to council questions]

7:04 p.m. Council chambers are filling up with councilmembers and audience.

7:08 p.m. Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance. And we’re off.

7:09 p.m. Roll call of council. All councilmembers are present and correct.

7:09 p.m. Approval of agenda.

7:09 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved the agenda without amendment.

7:09 p.m. Communications from the city administrator.

7:10 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers is calling the council’s attention to a communication attached to the agenda – notifying the council that the city could become a direct grantee of the federal CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) program). But the city could continue its participation through the Urban County, of which it is a member. Powers’ communication indicates that unless he is instructed otherwise, the city will continue its participation with the Urban County. [July 7, 2014 memo from Powers]

7:11 p.m. Powers is also noting that there are several street closings on the agenda. He observes that the books for FY 2014 will be closed and he’ll have a report on that soon.

7:11 p.m. INT-1 Volunteer of the Month. The proclamation honors Peter and Mary Fales as volunteers at the annual “Mayor’s Green Fair.” They have staffed the information booth and barricades and helped with set up and the tearing down of the event. Mary Fales is assistant city attorney with the city.

7:13 p.m. Public commentary. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

Three people are signed up to talk about US-Israel foreign policy: Mozhgan Savabiehsfahani, Blaine Coleman and Henry Herskovitz. Jeff Hayner is signed up to talk about the Barton Drive sidewalk special assessment. Kermit Schlansker is signed up to call for stopping construction of houses. Changming Fan is signed up to talk about the local development finance authority and job creation. And Thomas Partridge is signed up to talk about electing Mark Schauer for governor, affordable housing, human rights and transportation.

7:16 p.m. Thomas Partridge introduces himself as a recent candidate for the Michigan legislature. He calls it a critically important election year. He calls on everyone to work on behalf of Democrat Mark Schauer’s candidacy for governor. Relevant issues include expanding affordable housing, human rights and access to transportation, he says. It’s important to work beyond current plans to expand affordable housing, Partridge says. He says he’s speaking on behalf of the most vulnerable members of society. The council has addressed the material infrastructure needs of the city, while overlooking the kind of issues he’s talking about tonight, he says.

7:21 p.m. Blaine Coleman says he was here a year and a half ago when Israel was bombing Gaza. He’d asked Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) to spearhead a resolution asking for a boycott Israel. Now he was back a year and a half later and Israel was bombing Gaza again, and he was asking again for a symbolic resolution boycotting Israel. He refers to the beating of school children. [By way of background, here's a link to video posted by The Guardian, which reports the video was broadcast on a Palestinian TV station as showing the beating of Tariq Abu Khdeir, 15-year-old Floridian, who was visiting Israel.] [video] This boy was on the front page of the New York Times, Coleman says. He asks the council to pay for the boy’s airfare from Florida to come talk to the Ann Arbor city council.

7:24 p.m. Jeff Hayner allows that the issue that Coleman had talked about is emotional, whereas he was going to be talking about things paid for with taxes. Hayner is addressing the question of cost associated with the Barton Drive sidewalk construction. Some of the more precise figures are described in a comment Hayer wrote online here: [link] He’s comparing the costs to national costs in other cities. It seems like too much money, he says.

7:28 p.m. Mozhgan Savabiehsfahani is also addressing the beating of the Floridian schoolboy. She’s also talking about other children who have been beaten up “on your watch.” She’s been coming to the Ann Arbor city council for 10 years, she says, telling the council that they need to act, and she’s seen no effect. “How many more dead bodies can you handle?” she asks. She tells them that they’re trying to make history, but “You ain’t gonna make no history, if you say nothing in the face of this kind of brutality,” she tells them. “You support this with your silence,” she says. She calls the bus stop slogans here in Ann Arbor – “Our Way of Life” – phony. She and Coleman are holding signs showing photographs of the beaten boy’s face. She tells the council they’re looking at her like she’s some kind of five-headed dragon. Boycotting Israel is their duty, she concludes.

7:30 p.m. Kermit Schlansker is educating the council on total U.S. energy consumption: 97 quads of energy. One quad is an enormous number, he says. Long-term remedies will depend on lifestyle changes or else hardships. Houses take more energy to heat and more energy for transportation to them, he says. Stand-alone houses are the enemy of the planet, he says. We’re facing a dire long-term problem, he says. Every house that is built will need to be torn down to make way for something more important, he says.

7:34 p.m. Henry Herskovitz reminds the council that he’d told them last month how Israel had attacked the U.S.S. Liberty. Tonight he’s addressing the council on the topic of the Lavon Affair, which was a 1954 operation conducted by Israeli military intelligence that involved recruiting Egyptian Jews to strike U.S. and British civilian targets, which were then planned to be blamed on Muslim extremists. [Wikipedia link on Lavon Affair] Herskovitz traces the Lavon Affair to the policies of Eisenhower and Nasser. Lavon was an official who was forced to resign. Herskovitz quotes Malcom X, saying that the American public has been “bamboozled” on the issue of Israel.

7:37 p.m. Changming Fan introduces himself as president of TiniLite Inc. He thanks everyone, especially the council, for creating a model of volunteerism. He’s talking about the LDFA. He laments the lack of mention of jobs and manufacturing. He calls the leader of Ann Arbor SPARK a good salesperson. “Do something!” he shouts.

7:39 p.m. Carolyn Grawi is director of advocacy and education at the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living, which is located on Research Park Drive. She’s addressing the zoning changes that are proposed on tonight’s agenda. She wants the council to make sure that the city’s infrastructure is brought up to speed, in terms of access, whenever there’s development. She’s advocating for sidewalks on Research Park Drive. She points out that the public bus only goes one way, because there’s no stop light to facilitate a left turn. As this area develops and grows, the city needs to pay attention to issues of access, she says.

7:40 p.m. Communications from the council. This is the first of two slots on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

7:42 p.m. Jane Lumm is alerting the council to a memo she’d sent to her colleagues about a proposed charter amendment. [link] She also announces a citizens’ participation meeting July 10 at 7 p.m. at the Plymouth Road Holiday Inn on a 500-unit Toll Brothers development on the west side of Nixon and Dhu Varren.

7:43 p.m. Sabra Briere also notes that the same development mentioned by Lumm will be discussed at the planning commission’s work session tomorrow at 7 p.m. here at city hall.

7:45 p.m. Mike Anglin says that many of the city’s documents includes a mention of “health, safety and welfare” but it’s often forgotten. He compliments the planning commission for invoking that notion in delaying the Glendale development at its last meeting on July 1, 2014. Until you can show that you won’t get flooding, no development should take place, Anglin says. He’s comparing the inconvenience to developers with the right to health, safety and welfare for citizens.

7:47 p.m. Margie Teall asks the rules committee to review the idea of “tabling.” She was disturbed at how the tabling motion was used at the council’s last meeting. Because a tabling motion is not subject to debate, it prevented a full discussion. She did not think the motion was used properly. So she is asking the rules committee to review the issue so that meetings could be more cooperative.

7:48 p.m. Communications from the mayor. Mayor Hieftje is welcoming the students from Skyline and Huron high schools.

7:48 p.m. MC-1 Appointments. The council is being asked to confirm the appointment of Audrey Wojtkowiak to the board of the Ann Arbor housing commission, filling vacancy left by Christopher Geer’s resignation.

7:48 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved the appointment of Audrey Wojtkowiak to the AAHC board.

7:48 p.m. MC-2 Nominations. Being nominated tonight to the airport advisory commission is Theresa Whiting, replacing John Sullivan. And being nominated as a reappointment to the energy commission is Shoshannah Lenski. Votes on those nominations will take place at the council’s next meeting.

7:51 p.m. Hieftje is now giving an update on the alarming growth of people who are using the Delonis Center, the homeless shelter, who are not from Washtenaw County. That figure is up to 40%, he says. In this coming winter, it might reach 50%, and we might need to turn people away, he says. He’d met with the leadership of the homeless shelter, Ellen Schulmeister, and the city’s lobbyist in Lansing, Kirk Profit. The issue is that other organizations outside the county are sending people to Ann Arbor’s homeless shelter – and they have apparently declined the shelter’s request to call ahead to alert the shelter that they are sending people here.

7:51 p.m. Public hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting. Tonight there are five public hearings scheduled. The first three hearings are on the rezoning of properties owned by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission to be consistent with the AAHC’s renovation plans for its housing stock. [For additional background, see Development: Ann Arbor Housing Commission – Rezoning Final Approvals above.]

The fourth public hearing is on the confirmation of the special assessment for a sidewalk construction project on Stone School Road. [For additional background, see Infrastructure: Sidewalk Special Assessments above.] And the fifth hearing is on the site plan for an expansion of the Rudolf Steiner High School. [For additional background, see Development: Rudolf Steiner Site Plan above.]

7:53 p.m. PH-1 Green/Baxter rezoning. Thomas Partridge asks that all similar rezoning requests and site plan approvals be sent back and redrafted to include language that the land to be rezoned have significant access to people needing affordable housing on the land.

7:57 p.m. Jeff Hayner says that whenever land is rezoned from public land, there does need to be some extra concern. It needs to serve a public purpose, he says. He cautions against the possibility that the land could eventually serve a commercial purpose. He says that some people are salivating over the possibility of developing the Baker Commons property for commercial purposes.

7:57 p.m. That’s in for PH-1.

7:59 p.m. PH-2 Baker Commons rezoning. Thomas Partridge says there’s no justification for changing the zoning of Baker Commons. He calls for protections to ensure that the land continues to be used for affordable housing purposes. Ann Arbor is supposed to be a leader for human rights, he says, so this protection should be a part of every rezoning proposal that comes before the city council.

8:00 p.m. That’s it for PH-2.

8:03 p.m. PH-3 Maple Meadows rezoning. The previous two hearings concerned properties that are being rezoned from public land to a residential zoning, Thomas Partridge says. This one is not zoned as public land. He’s calling for affordable housing protections.

8:04 p.m. Hieftje is pointing out that all three properties are operated by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission.

8:05 p.m. PH-4 Stone School Road special assessment roll. Three representatives of the Jehovah’s Witnesses are addressing the council about the amount of the special assessment they’ve been assigned. They’re asking for some kind of waiver, given the nonprofit status of their organization. They’re asking for help and guidance. Hieftje tells them that city staff will provide them with options.

8:06 p.m. Jeff Hayner is telling the council that the cost for this project is twice the national average.

8:08 p.m. PH-5 Rudolf Steiner High School site plan. Jeff Hayner jokes that he’s not trying to usurp Partridge’s record of speaking turns. What “bums out” the neighborhood about this project is the loss of a 48-inch oak tree, he says. They’re planting 12 four-inch trees as remediation, which is good, he says. It would be nice to just move the tree, he says, like the University of Michigan is doing in a similar situation.

8:09 p.m. That’s it for PH-5.

8:09 p.m. Approval of minutes.

8:09 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved the minutes of its previous meeting.

8:09 p.m. Consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes:

• CA-1: Traffic Calming on Wells Street ($23,920).
• CA-2: Approve purchase order to Cogsdale Corporation for annual software maintenance.
• CA-3: Approve street closings and special event provisions for Relevent Sports International Champions Cup Soccer Game (Aug. 2, 2014). Various streets around Michigan Stadium for three hours prior to the start of the game.
• CA-4: Approve street closures for University of Michigan football games for University of Michigan football games (2014 Season): Various streets around Michigan Stadium for three hours prior to the start of each home football game.
• CA-5: Approve street closings for Dancing in the Streets (Aug. 31, 2014): S. Main between Huron and Liberty, and Washington between S. Ashley and the alley on E. Washington toward S. Fourth Avenue, from 11 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.
• CA-6: Approve street closings for the Electric Bolt 8K Run/Walk (July 27, 2014): Various streets from 6-10 a.m.
• CA-7: Approve Street closings for Cleats and Beats (Aug. 1, 2014): These street closures would be on S. Main from E. William to Huron, on Liberty from S. Ashley to S. Fourth, and on Washington from S. Ashley to the alley by the parking structure. This is sponsored by the Ann Arbor Convention and Visitors Bureau. It appears to be a different event than the Eats, Beats and Cleats event for which the council unanimously rejected a street closure request last year. That was proposed to take place in a South University neighborhood with a lot of student housing.

8:09 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration. Briere pulls out CA-1 and CA-4.

8:10 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved the consent agenda with the exception of CA-1 and CA-4.

8:11 p.m. CA-1 Traffic Calming on Wells Street. Briere is highlighting the mixture of different solutions – traffic humps and crosswalks. She says it’s unfortunate that the petition did not extend all the way to Burns Park Elementary. Taylor thanks staff for working with residents – with respect to how the percent of residents voting for the petition was to be calculated.

8:12 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved CA-1.

8:15 p.m. CA-4 Approve street closures for University of Michigan football games for the 2014 season. Anglin is questioning why the time period for different lanes is different – three hours versus one hour.

8:15 p.m. Police chief John Seto is explaining the logic of the three-hour closure. He reviews how the original proposal back in 2013 was for three hours for both lanes. The reduction to one hour on one lane was a kind of compromise. Seto says that based on last year’s experience, the appropriate length of time was actually three hours.

8:18 p.m. Anglin is asking if the public was asked about their feeling. Seto said he had walked the neighborhoods, and reminds the council that he’d provided a report back to the council on how things had gone. He also notes that a public meeting was held last week with neighbors. Hieftje says that he’d read a report about that public meeting, and asks Seto to summarize. Seto reports that 8-10 residents had attended. The main concern was post-game traffic, he says. It’s important to educate people to the fact that Main Street is open after the game, he says. There will be more signs and more traffic cones, he says.

8:19 p.m. Seto also notes that there was a complaint about helicopter noise.

8:20 p.m. Petersen asks what the impact had been last year on the front-lawn parking businesses that residents operate. Seto says that issue wasn’t raised at this most recent public meeting. He reported that for those parking lots near Main Street, there’d been some impact. Deeper into the neighborhoods there was less impact. They’d also incorporated suggestions for improvement of signage and messaging boards.

8:22 p.m. Hieftje says that the point is to make the game safe for 110,000 people and Seto is going out of his way to work with one or two residents. Eaton thanks Seto for his work with residents. He’d attended the public meeting, though he’d arrived late. But he’d continued opposing the closing of the streets, because he didn’t see a real security risk. He complimented Seto, however, on the way he worked with residents.

8:23 p.m. Briere says it’s not about security, but rather about controlling traffic and she’d be opposing it.

8:24 p.m. Teall says the idea that the council would second-guess the advice of Homeland Security is scary. She’ll vote for it. Kunselman also says that he’ll vote for it. Inside the stadium and looking out on Main Street, he’d seen a billboard truck inching along – and he’d remarked to his wife: “That could have been it.” We need to minimize the possibility that something horrible could happen, he says.

Taylor says he respects professionals and professionalism. The city has been told on a number of occasions that this is a good step to take. There’s an impact to neighborhoods, but it is mitigated by AAPD. He didn’t see a rationale for voting against it. The threat is easy to articulate and imagine and the cost benefit on this is plain, he says. Briere asks for an amendment to enforce a one-hour closure after the game – if this is indeed about security.

8:29 p.m. Lumm asks for Seto’s view of keeping Main Street closed for an hour after the game. Seto says that was considered last year. It would be difficult tactically to do that. Getting people out of the stadium as quickly as possible would reduce risk, he says. Once people get onto the streets, it’s difficult to get them off the streets. [This is what happened at the Winter Classic.]

8:30 p.m. Seto says that closing the street for an hour after the game would give the AAPD “significant challenges.” Lumm thanks Seto, saying it’s a clear explanation.

8:32 p.m. Kailasapathy allows she’s not a football fan. She wonders if it really takes more than an hour for the foot traffic to disburse. Seto: “It depends.” He’s now explaining various scenarios. Teall takes back a statement about traffic management, saying it is about traffic management and making the stadium area as secure as possible.

8:33 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved CA-4 over the dissent of Briere, Kailasapathy and Eaton.

8:33 p.m. B-1 (AAHC) Rezoning of 2.42 Acres from PL (Public Land District) to R4A (Multiple-Family Dwelling District), Green/Baxter Court Apartments. This and each of the next two items is for final approval of rezoning of Ann Arbor Housing Commission properties. Initial approval by the city council for this and the next two rezoning items came at its June 2, 2014 meeting.

The current PL (public land) zoning for some of the properties is a vestige of the AAHC properties’ status as city-owned land. The city council approved the transfer of deeds to the AAHC at its June 2, 2013 meeting. The three sites given initial rezoning approval on June 2, 2014 are part of the housing commission’s major initiative to upgrade the city’s public housing units by seeking private investors through low-income housing tax credits. [For additional background, see Development: Ann Arbor Housing Commission – Rezoning Final Approvals above.]

8:37 p.m. Briere asks for AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall to come to the podium. She asks Hall to explain how the AAHC properties are protected for continued use as affordable housing, given their rezoning. Hall is reciting the history of the city’s ownership of the properties – but the land was transferred to the AAHC. The “cleanest” way to go about this was to rezone the property consistent with what is already there. The funders who are providing financial support for the AAHC renovations require that the zoning be appropriate. The underlying use for the property is determined by HUD, she says. So their use will continue as affordable housing, Hall says.

8:41 p.m. Kailasapathy asks how long HUD requires the use to be for affordable housing. Hall is explaining the different kinds of documents. The agreements are in 20-year increments. Kailasapathy wants to make sure the use is for affordable housing in perpetuity. Hall gives three “stopgaps” against other uses: HUD, the AAHC board, and the Ann Arbor city council, which appoints the AAHC board.

8:41 p.m. Anglin wants to dive into B-2. Hieftje asks him to wait.

8:41 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give final approval to the rezoning of Green/Baxter Court Apartments.

8:41 p.m. B-2 (AAHC) Rezoning of 0.94 Acre from PL (Public Land District) to D2 (Downtown Interface District), Baker Commons. [For additional background, see Development: Ann Arbor Housing Commission – Rezoning Final Approvals above.]

8:45 p.m. Anglin asks why the zoning that was selected for the property was D-2. He’s concerned that it would be perceived as “advantageous” to people who might want to acquire and develop the property. Planning manager Wendy Rampson explains that Baker Commons has about 112% FAR and D-2 allows 200%. So there’s more capacity there, she says. Anglin says that people in need should be kept closer to downtown – jobs and transportation. Eaton gets clarification that the overlay district is the First Street character district.

8:45 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give final approval for the Baker Commons rezoning.

8:45 p.m. B-3 (AAHC) Rezoning of 3.3 Acres from R1C (Single Family Dwelling District) to R4B (Multiple-Family Dwelling District), Maple Meadows. [For additional background, see Development: Ann Arbor Housing Commission – Rezoning Final Approvals above.]

8:46 p.m. Anglin asks Hall to describe meetings with the public. Hall says that there were not meetings with the public about these three sites. The required legal notifications were mailed out, she explains.

8:46 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give final approval to the Maple Meadows rezoning.

8:46 p.m. Recess. We’re in recess.

8:59 p.m. We’re back.

9:00 p.m. Hieftje ventures the council can get through the rest of the agenda fairly quickly if they keep moving.

9:01 p.m. C-1 (AAHC) Rezoning of 4.8 Acres from R1C (Single Family Dwelling District) to R4B (Multiple Family Dwelling District), North Maple Road. This item is similar to the first three rezoning actions for Ann Arbor Housing Commission properties – but this is the initial consideration by the city council. The planning commission had recommended the rezoning at its June 17, 2014 meeting after postponing it on June 3, 2014. The site is on the west side of North Maple, between Dexter Avenue and Hollywood Drive. [.pdf of staff report] The site plan calls for demolishing 20 existing single-family homes – the public housing complex known as North Maple Estates – and constructing an eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex with a total of 138 bedrooms. [For additional background, see Development: Ann Arbor Housing Commission – North Maple Rezoning above.]

9:01 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval to the North Maple Road rezoning.

9:01 p.m. C-2 Rezoning of 16.6 Acres from RE (Research Dwelling District) to ORL (Office/Research/Limited Industrial Dwelling District). The council is being asked to give initial consideration to the rezoning of six sites along Research Park Drive – from RE (research district) to ORL (office/research/limited industrial district). Related to that rezoning, in the next item, the council will be asked to give initial approval to amendments to the city’s zoning code to allow outdoor recreation as a special exception use in the ORL zoning district. The six lots are undeveloped and total 16.6 acres. Four of the lots, on the southern end of the site, are owned by Qubit Corp. LLC; BMS Holdings LLC owns the northern two sites. [For additional background, see Development: Research Park Drive – Rezoning, Recreation above.]

9:03 p.m. Lumm notes that this is for rezoning of undeveloped sites. The natural features analysis and traffic impact analysis will be addressed when site plans are approved, she says. Warpehoski asks for an update on the ZORO (Zoning Ordinance Reorganization) process. City attorney Stephen Postema says that assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald can email an update to all of council.

9:03 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval of the Research Park rezoning.

9:03 p.m. C-3 Amend zoning to allow outdoor places of recreation in the Office/Research/Limited Industrial (ORL) Zoning District [For additional background, see Development: Research Park Drive – Rezoning, Recreation above.]

9:03 p.m. Briere says that on the assumption that both of the items related to Research Park Drive come back at the next meeting, she wants the order flipped.

9:04 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval of the zoning amendment that would allow places of recreation in the ORL zoning district.

9:04 p.m. C-4 Amend Section 1:237 of Chapter 8 (Organization of Boards and Commissions). The council is being asked to give initial approval to a change to the ordinance on city boards and commissions. Among the changes is an amendment that makes clear that the city planning commission, energy commission and park advisory commissions make their appointments to the environmental commission without further city council approval needed. [For additional background, see Environmental Commission: Ordinance Change above.]

9:05 p.m. Briere is noting that it’s in front of the council as a first reading item. She thinks that it will clarify the ordinance.

9:05 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval to the change to the city ordinance on boards and commissions. For final enactment, the council will need to take a second vote at its next meeting.

9:05 p.m. DC-1 Appoint new members to the city of Ann Arbor environmental commission. The council is being asked to confirm three nominations to the EC, which were announced at the council’s June 16, 2014 meeting: Allison Skinner, Benjamin Muth and Mark Clevey.

9:05 p.m. Based on the staff written responses to councilmember questions, Mark Clevey’s name won’t be put forward tonight, because he is the selection by the energy commission to represent the energy commission on the EC. Once enacted, the energy commission appointment to EC (like that of other boards and commissions to the EC) would be for a one-year term. So his confirmation is being held until the ordinance revision is complete.

9:06 p.m. Briere says that because the ordinance is being amended, Clevey’s name is, in fact, being eliminated from consideration tonight.

9:06 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the appointments of Allison Skinner and Benjamin Muth to the environmental commission.

9:06 p.m. DC-2 Recommend approval of issuance of a downtown development district liquor license to RCAA Developments LLC (Ruth’s Chris Steak House). The council is being asked to approve a downtown development liquor license for Ruth’s Chris Steak House. The council approved the site plan for Ruth’s Chris – to be located on Fourth Avenue between William and Liberty – at its June 2, 2014 meeting.

9:07 p.m. Lumm, who chairs the liquor license review committee, is explaining the ins and outs of the 2006 statute that allows award of downtown development liquor licenses. The minimum investment is $75,000, but Ruth’s Chris is investing millions of dollars, she says.

9:09 p.m. Anglin, who also serves on the liquor license review committee, cautions against bringing in corporate entities – as other smaller entities without the deeper pockets to make this kind of investment would be pushed out. Hiefjte tells Anglin that it’s a tough problem.

9:10 p.m. Kunselman says it wasn’t that long ago when Kresge and Borders were downtown, so he’s offering a little different perspective. Whether new businesses are corporate or local, he wants them to provide jobs and places for residents to go and shop. He says he kind of misses the McDonald’s that was over on Maynard.

9:10 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to recommend the award of a special downtown development liquor license to Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse.

9:10 p.m. DC-3 Approve temporary outdoor sales, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages during the 2014 Ann Arbor Art Fair. This resolution would allow several downtown businesses to serve alcohol outdoors during the Ann Arbor art fairs, to be held July 16-19 this year: Knight’s Restaurant (600 E. Liberty St.), Michigan Theater (603 E. Liberty St.), Neopapalis (500 E. William St.), Cottage Inn (508-512 E. William St.), New York Pizza Depot (605 E. William St.), Ashley’s Restaurant (338 S. State St.), Red Hawk Bar & Grill (316 S. State St.), and Pizza House (618 Church).

9:13 p.m. Lumm notes that the liquor license review committee had recommended this item for approval. Lumm says that city clerk Jackie Beaudry and assistant city attorney Mary Fales had been very nimble in dealing with a change by theMichigan Liquor Control Commission that required a 10-day review. This is the last day on which the council can approve this item, she says.

9:13 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve outdoor liquor for several downtown businesses during the art fairs this year.

9:13 p.m. DC-4 Call public hearing on issuance of bonds by the Economic Development Corporation. This resolution sets a public hearing for Aug. 7, 2014 on the issuance of re-funding bonds by the city’s Economic Development Corporation that were originally issued to finance and refinance capital improvements for the benefit of Glacier Hills Inc. – a series in the amount of $23,245,000, of which $15,440,000 is presently outstanding and another series of bonds in the amount of $9,875,000, of which $4,545,000 is outstanding. The issuance of the re-funding bonds will not encumber the city in any way, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution.

9:16 p.m. Lumm says she’s happy to co-sponsor this with Petersen. Lumm is reviewing the background of the re-funding of the bonds.

9:16 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the setting of a hearing on the issuance of bonds by the EDC.

9:16 p.m. DB-1 Approve the Rudolf Steiner High School building addition site plan. The private school is located at 2230 Pontiac Trail, north of Brookside. The project – estimated to cost $2.5 million – involves building a one-story, 19,780-square-foot addition to the existing classroom building. The structure will include a 9,990-square-foot gym, with the remaining 9,790 square feet used for classrooms and storage. [For additional background, see Development: Rudolf Steiner Site Plan above.]

9:16 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the Rudolf Steiner High School site plan.

9:16 p.m. DS-1 Confirm the Scio Church sidewalk special assessment roll. This is the first of three assessment rolls the council is being asked to approve tonight for sidewalk projects. [For additional background, see Infrastructure: Sidewalk Special Assessments above.]

9:19 p.m. Briere asks public services area administrator Craig Hupy about Hayner’s concerns – expressed during public comment – that the costs are too high. Hupy notes that the projects have not yet been bid and the numbers are just estimates. City engineer Nick Hutchinson also explains that there’s various curb and gutter and tree work that’s required in addition to the sidewalks. The reason that sidewalks don’t exist in these locations is that they’re challenging locations to install sidewalks, Hutchinson says.

9:21 p.m. Anglin asks about the 10% contingency that is built into contracts. He notes there were problems with the Madison Street reconstruction on the performance of the contractor. He wants specifications spelled out to contractors. The Madison job was left dormant for two months, he said, and that’s the reason it didn’t get done before winter. He ventures that the city should consider using a single-source contractor instead of taking the low bid.

9:23 p.m. Hupy says the 10% contingency can be adjusted up or down depending on the job. There are penalties for non-performance, he says. Hupy says that the city does impose penalties, even though you don’t hear about it. On the question of single-source contractors, assistant city attorney Abigail Elias quotes the one-word answer that a former city staffer, Bill Wheeler, gave regarding single source contracting for public works projects: “No.”

9:23 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to confirm the Scio Church sidewalk special assessment roll.

9:24 p.m. DS-2 Confirm the Barton Drive sidewalk special assessment roll. [For additional background, see Infrastructure: Sidewalk Special Assessments above.]

9:24 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the Barton Drive sidewalk special assessment roll.

9:24 p.m. DS-3 Confirm the Stone School Road sidewalk special assessment roll. [For additional background, see Infrastructure: Sidewalk Special Assessments above.]

9:24 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the Stone School Road sidewalk special assessment roll.

9:24 p.m. DS-4 Authorize a contract with Cadillac Asphalt LLC for the water utilities street repair program ($344,600/year). The contract covers repair of streets after water mains, storm and sanitary sewers are repaired.

9:24 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Cadillac Asphalt LLC.

9:24 p.m. DS-5 Authorize contract with Stantec Consulting Michigan Inc. for $125,000; and Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber Inc. for $125,000 for general civil engineering and surveying services. The contracts cover general civil engineering and surveying services. Those services include a range of activities, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution: design and management of capital improvement projects; private development construction plan review; private development utility and road construction inspection; traffic engineering; civil engineering design; construction inspection; drafting; and surveying.

9:25 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contracts with Stantec Consulting Michigan Inc. and Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber Inc.

9:25 p.m. DS-6 Award contract for replacement of clarifier drive at the drinking water treatment plant to Titus Welding Company ($175,000). According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the clarifier drive to be replaced is original to the plant and was installed in 1965. It had an expected life of 30 years. It has begun to show signs of failure, included seizing, high vibration, and bearing failure. The drive has been assessed by the manufacturer and it has been determined that it is not cost-effective to repair, according to the memo.

9:25 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Titus Welding Company.

9:25 p.m. DS-7 Approve Amendment No. 2 to the contract with Tetra Tech Inc. for environmental consulting services at the Ann Arbor Landfill ($80,835). This contract amendment brings the total amount on the contract to $624,221. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, for several years the landfill has had a plume of 1-4 dioxane and vinyl chloride contamination offsite primarily in Southeast Area Park, northeast of the landfill. A slurry wall was constructed along most of the boundary of the landfill to eliminate groundwater passing through the landfill, and three purge wells were used to attempt to capture the offsite contamination.

9:27 p.m. Lumm expresses concern about the amendments and the growing cost. But with this issue, she ventures there’s not a lot that can be done about it – the city has to do what MDEQ says, she says.

9:27 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Tetra Tech Inc.

9:27 p.m. DS-8 Approve a contract with Renosys Corporation to install PVC pool liners at Buhr and Fuller pools ($205,055). The city is switching to PVC pool lines from Marcite, which is, according to a staff memo, a “cementitous product that covers the pool shell creating a smooth and waterproof surface.” The new product has a smoother surface, and won’t require the yearly patching required due to harsh winters and wear and tear on the pool, according to the staff memo.

9:28 p.m. Hieftje says he’s visited both pools in the last few weeks and he’d enjoyed his swims, and the people there seemed to be enjoying themselves.

9:28 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Renosys Corporation.

9:28 p.m. DS-9 Notice the intent to vacate two segments of Seybold Drive adjacent to the proposed Ann Arbor Housing Commission North Maple Road Development. This notice of vacation is related to the rezoning and renovation of Ann Arbor Housing Commission properties at North Maple Estates. [For additional background, see Development: Ann Arbor Housing Commission – North Maple Rezoning above.]

9:28 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give notice of intent to vacate two segments of Seybold Drive.

9:28 p.m. DS-10 Approve agreement between city of Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County for animal control services ($135,570). Background to the city’s agreement includes a long process of discussions and negotiations between Washtenaw County and the Humane Society of Huron Valley (HSHV) – a conversation that began in 2011 when the amount of funding provided to HSHV was under scrutiny. A task force was appointed, and ultimately the county board of commissioners, at its Nov. 7, 2012 meeting, authorized contracting with HSHV for $500,000 a year for animal control services. [.pdf of contract between Washtenaw County and HSHV]

Cited in the council’s July 7 resolution as the cost of public animal control countywide is $951,793. The assignment of $135,570 of that cost to the city of Ann Arbor is based on the proportion of dogs that come from Ann Arbor that are housed at HSHV, factoring in the $500,000 provided to the HSHV by Washtenaw County.

9:31 p.m. Lumm has some questions. She is pleased that efforts are underway to improve compliance with dog licensing. Powers says that planning is underway. After the August primary, the clerk will be helping to implement the initiative. Lumm reports that she’d called the clerk’s office number and received the recorded message. She asks that the message provide a menu option for dog licenses.

Responding to another query from Lumm, Powers says that the deer management report will be completed at the end of the month as specified in the council’s resolution.

9:33 p.m. Lumm says she gets a lot of questions from constituents, including: How do you get rid of a dead deer carcass. Lumm thanks Powers for his work with Washtenaw County and the HSHV. For many years, the city has not paid for animal control services, Lumm says. That placed an unfair burden on HSHV, she adds. We’re still not quite all the way there as far as reimbursing HSHV, she says. The resolution designates HSHV as the animal shelter under Chapter 107 of the city code, she notes.

9:33 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Washtenaw County for animal control services.

9:35 p.m. Communications from the council. Kailaspathy alerts the council to a communication from the human rights commission. It concerns the same-sex marriages that were solemnized in Michigan – and it calls on Gov. Rick Snyder and attorney general Bill Schuette to cease their appeal of the federal court decision.

9:37 p.m. Teall is reminding councilmembers of the start of Huron River Day. She also says on July 9 there’s an emergency preparedness exercise at Michigan Stadium. There will be a lot of public safety personnel on site, she says.

9:41 p.m. Warpehoski notes that Lumm had shared her proposed amendment to the charter earlier in the meeting. He thanks Lumm for that effort. He says he fears that the mayoral election will be decided by less than a majority of voters. He’s working with the city attorney on a California-style blanket open primary. He’s not sure if it will be ready for this year, but if not he’ll look at it for 2016. The proposal deals with the possibility of the winner having less than a majority mandate, and would move the decision to an election with higher turnout. A possible downside, he explains, is that it could heighten the impact of money in elections. He’s also exploring the possibility of shifting to four-year election cycles. He’s not sure if it will be ready, but he wanted to follow Lumm’s example of alerting people to what he was working on.

9:42 p.m. Hieftje refers to state-level encouragement to communities that have elections every year to move them so that they are only every two years.

9:44 p.m. Lumm is happy to hear Warpehoski’s report of the work he’s doing. She ventures that a lot of people will want to provide some input into that question. She wants the question of non-partisan elections to be addressed. “This is absolutely something we should look at,” she says.

9:45 p.m. Briere says she wants to encourage people to consider not just the office of councilmember, but also for mayor as they think about this issue.

9:46 p.m. Kunselman says he’s taken the Ward 3 seat twice with less than 50% of the vote. He’s now asking about the DDA ambassador program. He wants to know if the DDA is going to use TIF (tax increment finance) or parking revenues for that program.

9:46 p.m. Clerk’s report.

9:46 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the clerk’s report.

9:46 p.m. Public commentary. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

9:48 p.m. Kai Petainen is at the podium. He asks the council to send the minutes from a March LDFA meeting back to the LDFA board because they indicate that he’d been a client of the business accelerator. He says he wasn’t.

9:50 p.m. Ed Vielmetti says that he’s noticed while riding his bicycle around town there’s a lot of bike lanes that are poorly marked. He’s not sure what the process is for reporting the erosion of striping. He asks that a city traffic engineer review the intersection at Hill and Packard. There was a left-turn lane created for the East Stadium bridges project, that might not be needed any longer, he says.

9:50 p.m. Thomas Partridge asks for the council to provide leadership to oversee the work of contractors in the city.

9:56 p.m. Jeff Hayner asks that as the Barton Drive sidewalk project gets done, some type of traffic control is considered. He’s commenting on the charter amendments that councilmembers have talked about. He asks councilmembers to consider the timing of elections when millages are passed, noting that the recent transit millage was passed with roughly 12% participation.

9:56 p.m. Closed session. The council has voted to go into closed session to discuss land acquisition, pending litigation and attorney-client written communication.

10:27 p.m. We’re back.

10:28 p.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

A sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chambers gives instructions for post-meeting clean-up.

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Back on the council’s March 3 agenda will be two resolutions – or possibly just one – that would make such a fund transfer. Also back on March 3 will be a resolution extending the part-time public art administrator’s contract for six months and appropriating $18,500 for that purpose.

The council’s actions on Feb. 18 began with final approval to an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance. That amendment allowed the council to transfer money accumulated through the now demised Percent for Art program back to the funds from which that money was drawn. Those funds include street millage funds, sanitary sewer funds, stormwater funds and the like. That ordinance amendment passed on a 10-0 vote. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) was absent from the 11-member council. The council had given initial approval to the ordinance amendment at its Feb. 3, 2014 meeting.

Any actual transfer of funds, however, required separate council action, with support from an eight-vote majority. Two different resolutions had been placed on the agenda addressing a fund transfer of money out of the public art fund. The first was sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2), joined by Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Jack Eaton (Ward 4), and Mike Anglin (Ward 5), and the second by Sabra Briere (Ward 1). The council ultimately postponed action on both resolutions.

The council flipped the order of the resolution at the start of the meeting, when the agenda was approved. So Briere’s resolution was considered first. A key difference between the two resolutions was the amount to be transferred: Lumm’s resolution specified a $819,005 transfer while Briere’s specified $957,140. The increased amount in Briere’s proposal was based on canceling a stalled public art project at Argo Cascades.

At the start of the council’s Feb. 18 meeting, the balance of unassigned funds accrued in the Percent for Art fund was $839,507. An additional $535,853 was earmarked for three projects that are underway: artwork at East Stadium bridges ($385,709), a rain garden at Kingsley and First ($7,009), and at Argo Cascades ($143,134). [.pdf of financial summary] A breakdown of the amounts that could be returned – and the funds of origin for the money – is covered here: [Art budget summary]

Another key element from Briere’s resolution was based on the council’s June 3, 2013 action to eliminate the Percent for Art funding mechanism, which also included a provision for a new approach to a public art program. The Percent for Art funding mechanism required 1% of all capital fund project budgets to be set aside for public art. The new approach enacted by the council last year can include city-funded art when it’s designed as an integral part of a capital project, as well as projects funded through a combination of private and public money.

So the resolution put forward by Briere included an instruction to the city administrator to direct city staff to develop a transition plan to be implemented by staff and the public art commission. It directed that plan to be presented to the council in about a year – before March 2, 2015. Briere’s resolution also directed the city administrator to establish a budget for public art administration for both the 2015 and 2016 fiscal years. [An initial list of requests from department heads for FY 2015, released by the city on Feb. 10, shows an $80,000 request for arts administration, which includes funds for a full-time art administrator, drawn from the general fund. FY 2015 runs from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015.]

Lumm and Kailasapathy felt the direction to establish a budget was too vague and they were not prepared to support the resolution on that basis.

When the roll call vote on postponement was taken,  Margie Teall (Ward 4) hesitated for several seconds before casting the final and deciding vote for postponement of Briere’s resolution to the council’s March 3 meeting. The other five votes for postponement were from Briere, Sally Petersen (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), and mayor John Hieftje.  In Taylor’s absence neither resolution had a realistic chance of meeting the eight-vote requirement for approval.

Those in favor of postponing Briere’s resolution instead of seeing it be defeated were unwilling to support Lumm’s resolution because it did not provide a clear plan or a path for transition to the new public art program. As councilmembers recognized that Lumm’s resolution did not have adequate support to pass, they voted unanimously to postpone it until March 3. That ended the debate on a comparatively calm tone, after featuring some sharp exchanges between Briere and Lumm.

The two councilmembers had been at odds earlier in the meeting over an affordable housing resolution (which was ultimately postponed) – which Lumm had not wanted placed on the agenda until March 3. Indications were that a single public art resolution might be crafted for the March 3 meeting, instead of putting both forward again. That drew some interest from Kunselman, who had stated early in deliberations that he would be voting against both resolutions. He floated the idea that if a single resolution were brought forward, he might lend it his support. Kunselman’s view of the matter was that establishing a budget for a transition and transferring funds  was best addressed as part of the annual budget process. The council adopts the next year’s fiscal budget at its second meeting in May.

In its final public art-related action on Feb. 18, the council reconsidered a resolution defeated at its Feb. 3 meeting – to extend the contract for the part-time public art administrator by six months and to appropriate funds to cover that $18,500 contract. The result of that council vote on Feb. 3 was that public art administrator Aaron Seagraves could not be paid. The council’s unanimous vote on Feb. 18 was to postpone the question until March 3.

The reconsideration of the contract extension at the Feb. 18 meeting was the result of political bargaining. That reconsideration had originally been based on whether there would be a successful vote to transfer Percent for Art money back to its funds of origin. But based on the way the debate on the two resolutions evolved, Eaton made a motion for reconsideration near the end of the meeting – with the understanding that would be immediately postponed.

The art administrator’s contract was first considered at the council’s Jan. 21, 2014 meeting, but was postponed in the context of a political horse trade – support for the administrator’s contract being contingent on beginning a process to transfer money accumulated under Percent for Art in previous years, back to the money’s funds of origin.

The Feb. 18 meeting also featured public commentary in support of public art funding from several speakers, including Margaret Parker, former chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission, and Bob Miller, the commission’s current chair. Parker referred to “negative city councilmembers” who say no to everything. Directing her comments at some councilmembers who say they’re in favor of public art, Parker asked, “Who can believe you?” Miller told councilmembers that the commission represents the council’s goals and direction. Another speaker, Dave Olson, read aloud from a statement that has been circulated in the arts community and that was signed by about 25 people advocating for a  sustainable art program.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron.

The council’s Feb. 18, 2014 agenda is highlighted by public art policy issues leftover from its previous meeting, as well as several items related to acquiring various pieces of basic equipment – from a garbage truck to a wood chipper.

The sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chamber, installed in the summer of 2013, includes Braille.

The possible acquisition of land is also on the agenda, in the form of a resolution postponed from an earlier meeting. The resolution would exercise the city’s right of first refusal to purchase the 16.7-acre Edwards Brothers Malloy property on South State Street. This process began when the University of Michigan offered to buy the property. An item authorizing the $12.8 million purchase is on the Feb. 20 UM board of regents agenda, based on the assumption that the city won’t exercise its right of first refusal earlier in the week.

In other action, the council will consider an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance for a second and final vote on Feb. 18, having given initial approval to the item on Feb. 3. The ordinance amendment would allow the council to transfer money that accumulated in the public art fund through the (now demised) Percent for Art funding mechanism in previous years. The money would be transferred back to the funds from which it was originally drawn – but that transfer would require a separate council action. To be approved, the ordinance change will need a six-vote majority on the 11-member council. The enactment of an ordinance can be vetoed by the mayor, but a veto can be overridden by an eight-vote majority.

Dependent on the public art ordinance amendment are two competing resolutions that would return money from the public art fund to the funds from which that money was drawn. That includes funds like the sanitary sewer fund and the street millage fund. Based on the Feb. 3 council deliberations, the debate on such a resolution would likely center on the amount to be returned to funds of origin, not the question of returning at least some of the money. And that point of possible disagreement is reflected in the amounts specified in the two resolutions. A resolution sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Jack Eaton (Ward 4) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) would transfer $819,005 back to the funds of origin.

A resolution added later to the agenda is sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1). Briere’s proposal would eliminate funding for the stalled Argo Cascades art project and would return $957,140 to the funds of origin. Briere’s resolution also directs the city administrator to establish a budget for public art administration for both the 2015 and 2016 fiscal years. [An initial list of requests from department heads for FY 2015, released by the city on Feb. 10, shows an $80,000 request for arts administration, which includes funds for a full-time art administrator.]

Either of the two proposed resolutions related to public art funds would require eight votes to pass.

Also expected back from the Feb. 3 agenda is a resolution that was defeated at that meeting – to extend the contract for the part-time public art administrator by six months and to appropriate funds to cover that $18,500 contract. It would need eight votes to pass. The result of the Feb. 3 council vote was that public art administrator Aaron Seagraves cannot currently be paid. The contract is supposed to be back on Feb. 18 for reconsideration – as part of the political bargain among councilmembers on the overall question of how the Percent for Art money that accumulated in the public art fund will be handled.

The council’s Feb. 18 agenda also features several pieces of equipment essential to core services. One of those core services is the repair of water main breaks, which have increased in frequency in recent weeks as the ground moves due to deeper and deeper penetration of frost. The council will be asked to approve the $441,535 purchase of a combination sewer truck, which is outfitted with a vacuum device – often used to control water in an excavation during the repair of a water main break. Also deployed when repairing water main breaks is a hydraulic excavator. So the council will be asked to approve the purchase of one for $176,472. Both of those authorizations are replacements of existing city equipment.

The council will also be asked to approve the purchase of a new garbage truck for $93,800. The purchase of two vans for a total of $50,320 is also on the council’s Feb. 18 agenda. The vans will be used by the parks and recreation staff to shuttle passengers when they start a river trip at one of the cities liveries on the Huron River. Rounding out equipment purchases is a $83,208 wood chipper.

Another piece of equipment shows up on the agenda in the form of a grant application the council is being asked to approve. The $334,140 grant application is being made to the 2013 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security – to acquire a mobile training facility to train firefighters. The 48-foot-long unit will allow live fire and tactical simulations.

In addition to the Edwards Brothers deal, several other real estate matters are on the Feb. 18 agenda. The council will be asked to approve the acquisition of development rights for two properties, using funds from the greenbelt millage. The first is a 24-acre parcel just north of the Huron River in Scio Township. The city of Ann Arbor will be contributing $25,200 to the total $84,000 cost of purchasing development rights, with the township contributing the difference. The second greenbelt property on the agenda is a 64-acre property on Zeeb Road, also in Scio Township. For that deal, the city is contributing $39,000 to the total purchase price of $130,335.

Related to land use, council will also be asked to give final approval to the zoning of the Hofmann property on South State Street – to C1 (local business district). The property houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky.

On the consent agenda is a contract with MDOT for reimbursement to the city for a portion of the cost to install rectangular rapid flashing beacons at three locations: on Geddes Road at Gallup Park; Fuller Road 400 feet east of Cedar Bend Drive; and on South University Avenue at Tappan Avenue. The city’s cost for the $47,971 project would be $14,179.

This article includes a more detailed preview of many of these agenda items for the Feb. 18 meeting, which was shifted to Tuesday because of the Presidents Day holiday on Monday. More details on other agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. The meeting proceedings can be followed Tuesday evening live on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network.

The Chronicle will be filing live updates from city council chambers during the meeting, published in this article below the preview material. Click here to skip the preview section and go directly to the live updates. The meeting is scheduled to start at 7 p.m.

Public Art

Four items related to public art are expected to be handled at the Feb. 18 council meeting: (1) a final vote on an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance; (2) two resolutions enabled by that change, which would transfer money out of the city’s public art fund back to the funds from which the money was drawn; and (3) a resolution extending by six months the contract for the city’s part-time public art administrator and appropriating funds to cover the $18,500 contract extension.

Public Art: Ordinance Amendment

Having given initial approval to an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance at its Feb. 3, 2014 meeting, the council is considering the item for a second and final vote on Feb. 18. The ordinance amendment would allow the council to transfer money that accumulated in the public art fund through the (now demised) Percent for Art funding mechanism in previous years.

The money would be transferred back to the funds from which it was originally drawn – but that transfer would require a separate council action. To be approved, the ordinance change will need a six-vote majority on the 11-member council. The enactment of an ordinance can be vetoed by the mayor, but a veto can be overridden by an eight-vote majority.

This ordinance revision reprises a previous effort to amend the public art ordinance to allow the transfer of money accumulated during previous years of the Percent for Art program to the money’s funds of origin. That unsuccessful effort came eight months ago at the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting. At that meeting, the council did eliminate the Percent for Art funding mechanism from the public art ordinance, and also allowed the most recent year’s accumulation of money to be returned to the funds of origin. The council also returned that most recent year’s worth of funding – $326,464.

The former Percent for Art program required 1% of all capital fund project budgets to be set aside for public art. As a part of the June 3 ordinance change, the council replaced the Percent for Art funding program with a new approach that would allow city staff, working with the public art commission, to identify capital projects suitable for “baking in” art. In addition to city funding of art designed to be an integral part of a specific capital improvement project, the approach envisioned general donations to a public art fund, and public art projects paid for with a combination of public and private funds.

The balance of unassigned funds accrued in the Percent for Art fund as of Jan. 14, 2014 is $839,507. An additional $535,853 is earmarked for three projects that are underway: artwork at East Stadium bridges ($385,709), a rain garden at Kingsley and First ($7,009), and at Argo Cascades ($143,134). [.pdf of financial summary]

Any actual transfer of money would require separate council action.

Public Art: Resolution on Return to Funds of Origin

Dependent on the public art ordinance amendment are two items now on the Feb. 18 agenda. Both are resolutions that would return money from the public art fund to the funds from which the money was drawn. That includes funds like the sanitary sewer fund and the street millage fund. Under the city charter, resolutions like this require eight votes on the 11-member council.

Based on the Feb. 3 council deliberations, the debate on such a resolution would likely center on the amount to be returned to funds of origin, not the question of returning at least some of the money. That’s already reflected in the two competing resolutions. The first is sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2), joined by Jack Eaton (Ward 4) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1). Lumm’s resolution would transfer $819,005, which would leave $20,500 – which is the total amount needed to fund an extension of the public art administrator’s contract and some additional administrative costs. It would also leave funds for three projects in the works at the following locations : East Stadium bridges, Argo Cascades, and the Kingsley & First rain garden.

A breakdown of the amounts that could be returned – and the funds to which that money would be returned – is covered here: [Art budget summary]

A second resolution transferring money from the public art fund to its funds of origin has now been added to the agenda as well. The second resolution is sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), and escalates the one initiated by Lumm. Briere’s resolution eliminates funding for the Argo Cascades art project – because the committee making the final selection between two artists has not been able to come to a consensus to move forward with either one of them. So Briere’s resolution would return $957,140, compared to the $819,005 called for in the proposal originally put on the agenda by Lumm.

The $138,135 difference in total amounts for the resolutions falls $5,000 short of the $143,134 cost of the Argo Cascades art project. That’s because Briere’s resolution allows $5,000 of funds to remain for a memorial to Coleman Jewett. The public art commission authorized $5,000 in Percent for Art funds for the project roughly five months ago, at its Sept. 25, 2013 meeting. Jewett was a long-time local educator who died in January 2013. After he retired, he made furniture that he sold at the Ann Arbor farmers market. A private foundation has committed $5,000 to create a memorial at the market, in the form of a bronze replica of one of Jewett’s Adirondack chairs. The current proposal, at a total cost of $15,000 is to create an artwork that includes  two such chairs. The $5,000 from the city plus the match from a private donor leaves a  $5,000 gap to be covered in private fundraising.

Briere’s resolution also calls for the city administrator to direct city staff to develop a transition plan to be implemented by staff and the public art commission, and for that plan to be presented to the council in about a year – before March 2, 2015. Briere’s resolution also calls for no additional projects to be initiated using funds set aside under the former Percent for Art program.

A further highlight of Briere’s resolution is direction to the city administrator to establish a budget for public art administration for both the 2015 and 2016 fiscal years. [An initial list of requests from department heads for FY 2015, released by the city on Feb. 10, shows an $80,000 request for arts administration, which includes funds for a full-time art administrator.]

The need for continued funding for arts administration is based on the new approach to the public art program established by the city council in June 2013. That new approach can include city-funded art when it’s designed as an integral part of a capital project, as well as projects funded through a combination of private and public money.

If the issue of the amount to be returned isn’t settled on Feb. 18 and the resolution does not pass in any form, another option would be to take up the question in the context of the annual budget resolution, which is considered at the council’s second meeting in May every year. Under the city charter, the budget resolution as a whole requires seven votes to be approved. But amendments to the budget resolution are subject only to the six-vote majority requirement.

On Feb. 10, the city released a list of budget requests made by department heads for the next fiscal year. And $80,000 from the general fund has been requested to fund a transition from the now defunct Percent for Art funding mechanism to the new public art program. The $80,000 would include compensation for a full-time art administrator for a year. In the meantime, the council will likely again consider a six-month extension of the part-time administrator’s contract at its Feb. 18 meeting.

Public Art: Resolution to Extend Public Art Administrator’s Contract

Also expected back from the Feb. 3 is a resolution that was defeated at that meeting – to extend the contract for the part-time public art administrator by six months and to appropriate funds to cover that $18,500 contract. The result of the Feb. 3 council vote was that public art administrator Aaron Seagraves cannot currently be paid.

The contract will likely be taken up on Feb. 18 for reconsideration – as part of the political bargain among councilmembers on the overall question of how the Percent for Art money that accumulated in the public art fund will be handled. The art administrator’s contract was first considered at the council’s Jan. 21, 2014 meeting, but was postponed in the context of a political horse trade – support for the administrator’s contract being contingent on beginning a process to transfer money accumulated under Percent for Art in previous years, back to the money’s funds of origin.

The conversation between mayor John Hieftje and Jack Eaton (Ward 4) at the council table toward the end of the Feb. 3 meeting indicated that Eaton would be bringing the item back for reconsideration on Feb. 18, provided that public art money was returned to its funds of origin. Only someone who voted on the prevailing side on Feb. 3 could bring back the item for reconsideration. Those councilmembers include Eaton, Lumm, Kailasapathy and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Equipment

The Feb. 18 agenda is relatively heavy on items related to acquiring basic equipment: a combination sewer truck, a hydraulic excavator, a garbage truck, two vans, a wood chipper, and a firefighter training unit.

Equipment: Water Main Breaks

The council’s Feb. 18 agenda features several pieces of equipment essential to core services. One of those core services is repair of water main breaks, which have increased in frequency in recent weeks as the ground moves due to deeper and deeper penetration of frost.

Here’s a sampling of recent water main breaks – from alerts the city of Ann Arbor has sent out:

• Jan. 15: West Madison between Fourth and Fifth
• Jan. 22: Devonshire between Washtenaw and Melrose
• Jan. 28: S. Industrial between Jewett and Eisenhower
• Jan. 28: Yost between Washtenaw and Parkwood
• Jan. 31: Pontiac Trail at Brookside
• Feb. 5: Washtenaw east of Brockman
• Feb. 11: Pauline between Seventh and Stadium

The council will be asked to approve the $441,535 purchase of a combination sewer truck, which is outfitted with a vacuum device – often used to control water in an excavation during the repair of a water main break.

City of Ann Arbor water main breaks by year. It’s not unusual to have several water main breaks in a given year. (Data from city of Ann Arbor financial records, chart by The Chronicle)

Also deployed when repairing water main breaks is a hydraulic excavator. The council will be asked to approve the purchase of this type of equipment for $176,472. Both of those authorizations are replacements of existing city equipment.

In more detail, according to the memo accompanying the resolution, the combination sewer truck is to be procured from Jack Doheny Supplies Inc. It will replace a 2005 truck with 6,685 hours of use. Over the last two years, the truck had broken down and needed repairs 63 times – taking it out of service anywhere from fours hours to more than two weeks each time.

When that truck is unavailable to do water main break repairs, a similar truck used for stormwater system maintenance is re-tasked for water main breaks. But that poses a challenge to keep up with the scheduled preventive maintenance of the stormwater system. And failure to meet the cleaning schedule puts the system at risk for clogging and backing up into structures.

On the hydraulic excavator, the staff memo explains that the John Deere model 135G hydraulic excavator to be purchased will replace a 2002 mini excavator. The primary use for that excavator is for water main repair.

The new hydraulic excavator will be able to dig down to 19 feet, which is 7 feet deeper than the 2002 mini excavator. So the larger water mains, which are typically deeper and older, will be reachable.

The mini excavator has been in service over 5,350 hours of use and half its total repair costs have accumulated in the last 3.5 years. The old excavator will be sold at the next city auction.

Equipment: Garbage Truck

The council will also be asked to approve the purchase of a new garbage truck for $93,800 from Bell Equipment Company, in Lake Orion, Michigan. It’s a smaller truck – with a 6-yard capacity. It will be used for garbage collection in the city parks, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution.

The new truck will replace a 2002 model with over 14,500 hours of operation. According to the staff memo, in the last three years, 57% of all time spent maintaining the vehicle has been spent on breakdowns while only 14% has been for preventive maintenance. In that three-year period, the cost of breakdown repairs has been more than $78,000, which is more than half of the 13-year lifetime total of $141,480.

Equipment: Vans

The purchase of two vans – from Red Holman GMC in Oakland County, for a total of $50,320 – is also on the council’s Feb. 18 agenda. The vans will be used by the parks and recreation staff to shuttle passengers when they start a river trip at one of the cities liveries on the Huron River. The van purchase was recommended by the park advisory commission at its Jan. 28, 2014 meeting.

According to a parks staff memo, the city’s current fleet of seven 15-passenger vans was unable to keep up with the increasing shuttle transportation demands for Huron River trips in 2013, following the opening of Argo Cascades. More vans are needed to transport people on these trips, which start at the Argo livery and end at Gallup Park. One van in the fleet needs to be replaced. The van purchase would increase the total van fleet to eight.

Equipment: Wood Chipper

Rounding out equipment purchases is a $83,208 Bandit model 1990XP diesel engine-powered wood chipper. According to the staff memo, the new model will replace a 2002 wood chipper, which is used for tree removals, tree trimming and storm clean-ups. The unit is a whole-tree chipper – it will process up to 21-inch diameter logs.

The chipper to be replaced has been in service for 11 years. It has 4,100 hours of use and 35% of its total repair cost ($74,600) has accrued in the last 2.5 years. The old chipper will be sold at the next city auction.

Equipment: Firefighting Simulator

Another piece of equipment shows up on the agenda in the form of a grant application the council is being asked to approve. The $334,140 grant application is being made to the 2013 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security – to acquire a mobile training facility to train firefighters. The 48-foot-long unit will allow live fire and tactical simulations. The kind of unit that the grant money, if awarded, would allow the city to purchase is comparable to this: [.pdf of brochure for training unit]

Land

The council’s Feb. 18 agenda features several land and land use items: two greenbelt properties; a green streets policy; a zoning issue; and the possible exercise of the city’s right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers Mallow property on South State Street.

Land: Greenbelt

The council will be asked to approve the acquisition of development rights for two properties, using funds from the city’s open space and parkland preservation millage. The first is a 24-acre parcel just north of the Huron River in Scio Township. The city of Ann Arbor, through its greenbelt program, will be contributing $25,200 to the total $84,000 cost of purchasing development rights, with the township contributing the difference. The deal was recommended by the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission at its Jan. 2, 2014 meeting.

Property owned by Thomas E. and Eleanor S. Moore in Scio Township. The Moores applied to the Scio Township Land Preservation program. The city is partnering with the township on the deal.

The second greenbelt property on the agenda is a 64-acre property on Zeeb Road, also in Scio Township. For that deal, the city is contributing $39,000 to the total purchase price of $130,335. The city’s greenbelt advisory commission recommended moving ahead with this deal at its Nov. 7, 2013 meeting.

Property owned by Maria E. White in Scio Township. White applied to the Scio Township Land Preservation program and the city of Ann Arbor is partnering with the township on the issue.

Land: Green Streets

On the council’s agenda is a policy item related to land: infiltration standards to be followed whenever a city street is reconstructed. The “green streets” policy initiative came at the direction of the city council in a July 2, 2012 resolution.

Land: Hofmann Rezoning

Related to land use, council will be asked to give final approval to the zoning of the Hofmann property on South State Street – to C1 (local business district). The property houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky. The council gave initial approval to the zoning at its Jan. 21, 2014 meeting.

The two parcels in question – just south of Stimson and the Produce Station – are owned by Stefan Hofmann. The site at 1645 S. State is used for storage. In addition to housing Biercamp, the parcel at 1643 S. State also includes an auto repair shop and furniture manufacturer, which is primarily a woodworking shop.

The zoning for these parcels, which were annexed into the city from Ann Arbor Township in 2011, has previously been considered by the planning commission and the city council. That was when Biercamp owners Walt Hansen and Hannah Cheadle wanted to zone the property C3 (fringe commercial district), so their business could sell a wider variety of merchandise, including products not made on site.

When the property was annexed into the city from the township, the site had been zoned by the township for light industrial. The closest equivalent in the city’s zoning code was M-1 (limited industrial zoning). The city’s master plan – prior to the adoption of the South State Street corridor plan – called for light industrial zoning in that area, but M-1 zoning would only allow for retail space to occupy 20% of the building’s floor area, to sell products made on-site.

At its Sept. 8, 2011 meeting, the planning commission unanimously recommended denial of that C3 zoning request, based on the proposed zoning being inconsistent with the city’s master plan. The request was then made directly to the city council, which also denied the request at a meeting on Feb. 21, 2012.

At the time, planning commissioners also were advocating for a broader study of the State Street corridor. That study was subsequently completed, and on July 15, 2013, the city council adopted the South State Street corridor plan as an amendment to the master plan’s land use element.

According to a staff memo, the adoption of the corridor plan into the city’s master plan prompted city planning staff to initiate the current zoning request. The C1 zoning is consistent with recommendations in the master plan, which calls for a mixed-use neighborhood retail center in that area to serve the Yost and Burns Park neighborhoods.

C1 is a more restrictive type of zoning than C3, primarily related to limits on the size of a business. No drive-thru restaurants are allowed in C1 districts, and there’s an 8,000-square-foot limit on the size of a business, for example. There is no restriction in either C1 or C3 that limits the products sold to those that are made on-site.

The city’s planning commission recommended C1 zoning for these parcels at its Dec. 17, 2013 meeting.

During council deliberations on Jan. 21, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) noted that the staff memo gave the historical perspective, but he hadn’t been sure if the proposal met Biercamp’s needs. Warpehoski told other councilmembers that the Biercamp owners are supportive of the C-1 zoning.

Land: Edwards Brothers Malloy Property

A resolution postponed from the council’s Feb. 3 meeting would approve the city’s exercise of its right of first refusal on the 16.7-acre Edwards Brothers Malloy property. The University of Michigan has offered $12.8 million for the land, and a resolution to authorize that purchase is on the Feb. 20 agenda of the UM board of regents. A UM staff memo notes that the site is “strategically located next to the Donald R. Shepherd Women’s Gymnastic Center, Varsity Tennis Center, and Bahna Wrestling Center and contiguous to other University of Michigan property…”

The council had on Feb. 3 postponed the item “to our next meeting” – which at that time was scheduled for Feb. 18. But subsequently a special meeting was called for Feb. 10 to consider the question. That special meeting was then cancelled.

The Feb. 18 resolution would approve the exercise of the city’s right of first refusal, appropriate necessary funds, and direct the city administrator to notify Edward Brothers Malloy about the exercise of the city’s right. The agenda item contained no other background information.

At its Jan. 6, 2014 meeting, the council had directed the city administrator and the city attorney to explore options and gather information about the Edwards Brothers land. The due date for that gathering of information was specified in the council’s resolution as Jan. 30 – the same day that the land-purchase item was added to the Feb. 3 agenda.

At its meeting on Jan. 21, 2014, the council approved without discussion a $25,550 contract with Atwell LLC for environmental site assessment services on the property. That assessment included a survey of asbestos-containing materials.

The pending sale of the property to UM was announced in a Nov. 27, 2013 press release. The business – a fourth-generation Ann Arbor publishing and printing firm – had signaled its intent to put the property on the market in late July.

The city’s right of first refusal on the property was a condition of a tax abatement granted by the city council three years ago, on Jan. 18, 2011. Purchase by the university would remove the property from the tax rolls. Washtenaw County records show the taxable value of the property at just over $3 million. In 2013, Edwards Brothers paid a total of $182,213 in real property taxes, not all of which is the city’s levy. The total city levy of 16.45 mills on $3 million of taxable value works out to about $50,000.

According to the tax abatement agreement, the event triggering the city’s 60-day right-of-first-refusal window is a formal notification to the city by Edwards Brothers, which was made on Nov. 27, 2013. The council will still be within the 60-day window when it votes at its Feb. 18 meeting.

The resolution the council will be taking up on Feb. 18 requires an eight-vote majority on the 11-member council – because the resolution changes the city budget and involves a purchase of real estate.

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons

On the Feb. 18 consent agenda is  a contract with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation for reimbursement to the city for a portion of the cost to install rectangular rapid flashing beacons at three locations: on Geddes Road at Gallup Park; Fuller Road 400 feet east of Cedar Bend Drive; and on South University Avenue at Tappan Avenue. The city’s cost for the $47,971 project would be $14,179.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, part of the rationale for the choice of locations is “a history of pedestrian crashes that made them candidates for safety grant funding.” Responding to an emailed request from The Chronicle, city engineer Patrick Cawley provided the following accident history for the locations:

• Fuller Road (2) on May 13, 2009 and Feb. 11, 2010.
• S. University (3) on Feb. 7, 2006, Nov. 24, 2007, and Sept. 8, 2008.
• Geddes (1 involving a bicyclist) on Feb. 9, 2008.

Road Salt

Also on the agenda is a resolution to approve purchase of additional ice-control salt. Based on the $47,200 amount to be appropriated, and the $36.23 price per ton, the council will be authorizing the purchase of roughly 1,300 tons of additional salt.

A city staff estimate provided to The Chronicle puts the amount of salt used so far this season – through early February – at about 6,600 tons. That’s roughly at least as much or more than has been used in each of the previous five winter seasons. If the city uses all of the additional salt to be purchased – bringing this season’s total to about 7,900 tons – that would approach the maximum amount of salt used by the city over the last seven seasons. In the 2007-2008 season, the city of Ann Arbor used 8,500 tons of salt on its roads.

Ice-control salt usage in the city of Ann Arbor by year. (Data from the city of Ann Arbor. Chart by The Chronicle.)

According to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, the city’s snowplow equipment uses “electronically calibrated spreader controls” to keep the amount of salt used to the minimum amount that is still consistent with traffic safety. The price the city is paying for the salt to be authorized on Feb. 18 is established through a state of Michigan’s MIDEAL program. According to the staff memo, the cost for purchasing additional material on the open market would be about $140, or nearly four times as much as under the MIDEAL program.

3:37 p.m. City staff responses to city councilmember questions are now available: [Feb. 18, 2014 responses to agenda questions]

4:09 p.m. Additional information on the Edwards Brothers land sale is now available: [Edwards Brothers Chart][Additional Offer for Edwards Brothers 2-18-14][Memo to Council]

4:53 p.m. From the due diligence memo: “The analysis shows that there is a possible negative impact in every scenario, except where the benefit of the taxes to all taxing jurisdictions is taken into account. Also, we note that if the City is unable to recoup the $4.5 million of General Fund balance that is assumed will be used to finance the acquisition of the site, the General Fund balance would fall to the 9% to 10% of expenditure range from the existing 14% to 15% range.” Indications are that the council will have two resolutions to choose from – one waiving the right of first refusal and another exercising it.

6:38 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. Chambers are relatively quiet. Four members of the audience have arrived. No councilmembers or staff are in chambers.

7:04 p.m. Nearly everyone is here. We’re settling in.

7:09 Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance. And we’re off.

7:10 p.m. Roll call of council. All councilmembers except for Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) are present and correct.

7:11 p.m. Approval of agenda. Jack Eaton wants DC-2 (the return of Percent for Art funds and timeline, sponsored by Sabra Briere) to be heard before DC-1 (return uncommitted public art funds, sponsored by Eaton, Jane Lumm, Sumi Kailasapathy and Mike Anglin). Briere wants DC-3 (a resolution to recommend the Ann Arbor Housing Commission’s request for an allocation from the Ann Arbor Affordable Housing Trust Fund) until just after the consent agenda.

7:11 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved its agenda as amended.

7:12 p.m. Communications from the city administrator. City administrator Steve Powers is highlighting the street closures on the consent agenda that are signs of spring – street closures for art fair and the Ann Arbor marathon.

7:13 p.m. Powers encourages people to help clear out storm drains as the snow melts. The frost is down to about four feet, he says. A hard rain would be problematic. The city released a map of all catch basin locations today.

7:13 p.m. Public commentary reserved time This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

Tonight’s lineup for reserved time speaking includes four people speaking on public art topics: Margaret Parker (former Ann Arbor public art commission chair), Bob Miller (current AAPAC chair), Dave Olson and Mary Underwood.

Rita Loch-Caruso is signed up to talk about the green streets policy. And Thomas Partridge is signed up to talk about a more racially and politically just Michigan.

7:17 p.m. Margaret Parker is now at the podium. She introduces herself as co-owner of Downtown Home & Garden. She recalls her longtime service on the public art commission. The set-aside from sanitary sewer and stormwater funds was originally meant to convey the city’s pride in those systems. She refers to “negative city councilmembers” who say no to everything. To some councilmembers that say they’re for public art, she asks, “Who can believe you?” She tells the councilmembers that as an “act of good faith” the funds should be left in place. She ventures that transferring the money out would allow Ann Arbor to grab the headlines as a “reactionary art-phobic city” that destroyed its public art program.

7:19 p.m. Bob Miller introduces himself as the current chair of the public art commission. “We represent your goals and direction,” he says. Two projects are jeopardized by the process, he says: Canoe Imagine Art and the Coleman Jewett memorial chair. Both projects now have matching funds that are at risk, Miller says. Those projects are important to AAPAC, he says. He says that he’s proud of the work done at the wastewater treatment plant. Those who work at those various facilities are proud of their work and public art can celebrate their work, he says.

7:23 p.m. Dave Olson tells the council he lives in Water Hill near Fountain Street. He’s reading aloud from a statement that has been circulated in the arts community. It describes people as “alarmed” at council’s recent actions. Failing to fund a transition is one significant criticism in the statement. He and others are advocating for a real sustainable art program. The statement is signed by roughly 25 people, all of whom support the statement, he says. He tells the council their actions have alienated the arts community. He doesn’t want to miss the opportunity to work together.

7:26 p.m. Rita Loch-Caruso is addressing the council as a member of the water committee of the environmental commission. She’s supporting the green streets policy that’s on the agenda. The policy will improve water quality as well as help control runoff, she says. Why focus on streets? She tells the council that streets make up 26% of total impervious surface area in the city, but contribute 54% of stormwater runoff. The requirements in the policy are consistent with the city’s stormwater permit as well as with new county rules that are pending. She calls it a forward-thinking policy. She thanks the other members of the committee and various city staff.

7:29 p.m. Thomas Partridge introduces himself as a recent candidate for various public offices. He calls on the council to create a more racially and politically just society in Michigan. He calls for expanding affordable housing in the city. Partridge says the public art issue should be postponed to give time for cooler heads to come forward to solve this problem.

7:33 p.m. Mary Underwood says that she’s a member of the arts community, but asks that some of the money be returned to the funds of origin. She points to the reduction in city staff levels and the resulting reduction in services. She recalls in a earlier era getting excellent service regarding a dying maple tree. She laments the loss of other employees over the years in the context of the part-time public art administrator’s position.

7:35 p.m. Communications from council. This is the first of three slots on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

7:36 p.m. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) is talking about an article published in The Ann Arbor Observer. He’s reading aloud a paragraph from the original article about the filing of TIF (tax increment financing) reports by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Kunselman then reads the correction to the December 2013 article. But Kunselman is contending that the correction is also mistaken. So Kunselman wrote an email to city administrator Steve Powers about the issue. [Kunselman is pointing out the history that the DDA did not submit some TIF annual reports before 2011. He is referring at least in part to the DDA annual reports for 2003, 2008, 2009 recorded in Legistar as filed in 2011. Kunselman asks that Powers correct the public record. Powers says that he'd be happy to share his statement with anyone who'd like it.

7:39 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) is announcing a neighborhood meeting for the Barton Drive sidewalk and Northside traffic calming project. It's on Feb. 25 at 6:30 p.m. at Northside Elementary School, 912 Barton Drive. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) says she has good news to share: a $250,000 contribution from the Rotary Club of Ann Arbor to fund a universal access playground at Gallup Park.

7:41 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) is raising the issue of special assessments for construction of sidewalks, to help low-income residents. It's something we should think about as a community, he says.

7:43 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) is talking about the number of broken water mains. She relates how Kunselman was out walking his dog and had seen a water main break; Kunselman had called 911, she says. She asks what people are supposed to do.

7:46 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers calls public services area administrator Craig Hupy to the podium: 994-2840 is the number to call for a water main issues, he says. It's hard to tell sometimes the difference between puddling and an actual leak, he says. But if there's water spurting up, then that's probably a break.

7:46 p.m. Eaton says that on Feb. 14, the city attorney had circulated a confidential memo on property assessments, which Eaton would be asking the council to waive privilege on at its next meeting. Following up on Hupy's information, Eaton mentions that ArborWiki has a handy page with all the emergency numbers.

7:46 p.m. Mayor John Hieftje calls for the city to come together to clear the walks as the weather thaws.

7:47 p.m. Nominations. Being nominated by mayor John Hieftje tonight to serve on the local officers compensation commission (LOCC) is Jason Morgan. For background on this group, see: "What Do We Pay Ann Arbor's Mayor?" The council will vote on the confirmation at its next meeting. Morgan is director of government relations at Washtenaw Community College.

7:49 p.m. Kunselman raised his hand on this, but wasn't called on. Now he's called on. He's asking about the start of the term on the LOCC appointment, which is October 2014. Hieftje allows that it's odd. But it's a matter of getting all the appointments back to their proper timing, he says.

7:49 p.m. Public hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting. Two public hearings are on the agenda: (1) the zoning of the Hofmann property on South State Street; and (2) the amendment of the public art ordinance.

The zoning item would give final approval to the zoning of the Hofmann property on South State Street – to C1 (local business district). The property houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky. [For additional background, see Land: Hofmann Rezoning above.] The public art ordinance amendment would allow the council to transfer money that accumulated in the public art fund through the (now demised) Percent for Art funding mechanism in previous years. The money would be transferred back to the funds from which it was originally drawn – but that transfer would require a separate council action. [For additional background, see Public Art above.]

7:49 p.m. PH-1 Hofmann zoning. Thomas Partridge is calling for rezoning to be approved only if access is provided to all members of the community to the property.

7:52 p.m. That’s all for this public hearing.

7:55 p.m. PH-2 Amend public art ordinance. Thomas Partridge notes that the public art issue has been coming before the council repeatedly and has been a divisive topic. Why? he asks. Public art is a treasure. Why can’t the mayor and council initiate a “cease fire,” a “detente” by postponing the question tonight. That would allow cooler heads to prevail, he says. Why does there have to be an art commission just for Ann Arbor? Why isn’t there a Washtenaw County or region-wide public art commission?

7:56 p.m. And that’s it for this public hearing.

7:56 p.m. Minutes. Outcome: The council has approved the minutes from its previous meeting.

7:56 p.m. Consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes:

• CA-1 Transfer responsibility for billing of water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater service from the public services area to the city treasurer. The city code explicitly allows for this: “Billing for water service, sanitary sewer service, and stormwater service shall be the responsibility of the Public Services Area of the City, but the Council may, by resolution, transfer such responsibility to the City Treasurer.”
• CA-2 Approve a purchase order for AutoDesk engineering design and drafting software licensing status upgrade ($24,431). This is an update. From the staff memo: “Environmental and infrastructure management planning issues and the upkeep of critical City infrastructure is improved through use of engineering design and drafting software.”
• CA-3 Revise and approve board of review guidelines for poverty exemptions. From the staff memo, maximum income levels range from $19,500 for one person to $54,500 for eight people.
• CA-4 Approve street closings for Ann Arbor Marathon. The marathon takes place March 30, 2014. The map of street closings is here: [.pdf of map of street closings]
• CA-5 Approve street closings for 2014 Ann Arbor art fairs. The fairs take place from July 15 through July 20. The map of street closures is here: [.pdf of map of art fairs street closings]
• CA-6 Approve purchase of one 6-yard rear loading garbage truck ($93,800). The 6-yard capacity truck would be purchased from Bell Equipment Company, in Lake Orion, Michigan. It will be used for garbage collection in the city parks, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution. [For additional background, see Equipment: Garbage Truck above.]
• CA-7 Approve purchase of a wood chipper ($83,208). The chipper is a Bandit model 1990XP diesel engine-powered wood chipper. According to the staff memo, the new model will replace a 2002 wood chipper, which is used for tree removals, tree trimming and storm clean-ups. [For additional background, see Equipment: Wood Chipper above.]
• CA-8 Approve purchase of two 15-passenger vans ($50,320). The vans will be used by the parks and recreation department to shuttle passengers when they start a river trip at one of the cities liveries on the Huron River. [For additional background, see Equipment: Vans above.]
• CA-9 Approve agreement with the MDOT for installation of rectangular rapid flashing beacons ($47,971). This is a contract with MDOT for reimbursement to the city for a portion of the cost to install rectangular rapid flashing beacons at three locations: on Geddes Road at Gallup Park; Fuller Road 400 feet east of Cedar Bend Drive; and on South University Avenue at Tappan Avenue. The city’s cost for the $47,971 project would be $14,179. Part of the rationale for the choice of locations is “a history of pedestrian crashes that made them candidates for safety grant funding.” [For additional background, see Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons above.]

7:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved the consent agenda, without pulling out any of them for separate consideration.

7:57 p.m. DC-3 Recommend Ann Arbor Housing Commission request. Background to this resolution includes a city council decision made on Dec. 16, 2003 to allocate the full net proceeds of the pending sale of the former Y lot to the affordable housing trust fund. That amount is almost $1.4 million. Background also includes an Ann Arbor housing conversion initiative to convert its properties to ownership through a private-public partnership – with a goal of putting those properties on a financially stable foundation for the longer term.

For the shorter term, that AAHC initiative requires investment in capital repairs. The AAHC has asked the city and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to contribute $600,000 each to the shorter-term effort. At a meeting of the DDA partnerships committee on Feb. 12, the request was reportedly met with a somewhat lukewarm reception, as DDA board members were interested in possibly making a contribution in installments. The DDA is also keen to see its contribution matched by the city. The resolution on the council agenda directs the city administrator to prepare a budget amendment for the allocation of $600,000 from the affordable housing trust fund for the first phase of the Ann Arbor housing commission’s plan and to place that resolution on the agenda when the city receives the proceeds of the old Y lot sale.

7:59 p.m. Briere is reviewing the content of the resolution, which comes as a result of an Ann Arbor housing & human services advisory board resolution approved last week. It does not change the budget, but directs the city administrator to prepare a budget amendment when the old Y lot is sold. Briere says that AAHAC does not need the money in their hands but needs to know that the money can be in their hands by the end of March.

8:01 p.m. Briere notes that it’s a notional approval.

8:01 p.m. Eaton moves for postponement. Lumm offers her take on the result of the HHSAB meeting. She’s concerned about the process. She and Briere both attended the HHSAB meeting. She felt the HHSAB board’s consensus was that it wasn’t essential that the item be on the council’s agenda tonight.

8:03 p.m. Lumm also objects to the fact that the item was placed on the agenda after close of business on Friday. Margie Teall (Ward 4) says she sees no reason why the item has to be postponed. If the council moves ahead on this, that will ensure that the DDA also moves ahead, she says.

8:06 p.m. Hieftje asks Teall as liaison to the AAHAC about the RAD conversion. It’s an urgent project, he says. Hieftje says that the agenda item was actually in on time. Lumm disputes that. Hieftje notes that it’s actually possible to add an item at any time. He says it doesn’t actually do anything but is still important. Lumm says that everything that Hieftje wants to happen can happen at the next meeting, on March 3. Lumm appeals to the notion of good behavior by councilmembers towards each other.

8:07 p.m. Briere says that she and Lumm had a different understanding of the outcome of the HHSAB meeting. She says that Lumm had missed the fact that Briere had indicated she was going to bring the resolution forward. Briere reviews the exact timing of her submission of the item. She allows that Lumm is correct that it isn’t an emergency. She notes that the council had a long three-day weekend to review it.

8:08 p.m. Eaton calls it a simple request for courtesy. It would establish the respect that councilmembers talked about earlier in the year.

8:11 p.m. Teall calls the mission of the AAHAC is much more important than the fact that someone got their toes stepped on. Kunselman recalls that he had thought he submitted an item by 5 p.m. on the Fuller Road MOU (memorandum of understanding) but hadn’t and so he had agreed to postpone out of courtesy. Kunselman raises the question of whether the council is posturing for the DDA. He’s concerned that the DDA will only be able to contribute to Miller Manor and Baker Commons. So that might be a reason for the DDA to vote first on the issue. Is the DDA going to wait for the council? asks Kunselman.

8:13 p.m. Powers tells Kunselman that the DDA as a whole board does not yet have a position. Kunselman ventures that Powers could get clarification about what the DDA’s position is – because Powers sits on the DDA board. He asks Powers to convey to the other DDA board members that he doesn’t think it’s suitable for the DDA to hold the AAHC hostage.

8:14 p.m. Briere reviews how the whole DDA board doesn’t meet until March 5. The council meets on March 3. Briere reviews how she’d asked Lumm to co-sponsor this resolution.

8:16 p.m. Warpehoski asks Jennifer Hall, executive director of the AAHC, to the podium. She tells Warpehoski that he’s put her in the middle of a ping pong match. She stresses that she’s focused on getting the rehabilitation project done. She reviews Phase 1. About $1 million from the federal Home Loan Bank that AAHC had hoped to get did not materialize, she says. They were placed on an alternate list. About the DDA and the city, she says, “I don’t really care who goes first.”

8:18 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted postpone the item. Voting for postponement were Kailasapathy, Petersen, Lumm, Kunselman, Eaton, and Anglin.

8:18 p.m. B-1 Hofmann zoning. This change would zone two parcels totaling 0.6 acres from an unzoned status to C1 (local business district). The council gave initial approval to the zoning at its Jan. 21, 2014 meeting. The C1 zoning does not include any restriction that limits the products sold to those that are made on-site. And that’s something the owners of Biercamp had tried to achieve with a previous zoning request that had ultimately been denied by the council.

8:18 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to approve the zoning of the Hofmann property as C1.

8:18 p.m. B-2 Amend public art ordinance. The ordinance amendment would allow the council to transfer money that accumulated in the public art fund through the (now demised) Percent for Art funding mechanism in previous years. The money would be transferred back to the funds from which it was originally drawn – but that transfer would require a separate council action. To be approved, the ordinance change will need a six-vote majority on the 11-member council. The enactment of an ordinance can be vetoed by the mayor, but a veto can be overridden by an eight-vote majority. [For additional background, see Public Art above.]

8:19 p.m. Lumm reviews the content of the ordinance. She stresses that the ordinance change does not actually return any funds. A separate action will be required, she notes.

8:22 p.m. Kunselman says, “Boy this is a tough one.” Back on June 3, 2013, he had voted against changing the ordinance. At this point he’s willing to amend the ordinance. But he cautions that he’ll probably be voting against both of the other resolutions about returning funds. He feels that the discussion should probably happen in the context of the annual budget resolution in May. He won’t vote for either resolution, he says.

8:24 p.m. Eaton says that at an earlier meeting he’d proposed a compromise involving the art administrator: If public art money is returned, and the mayor assures he won’t veto the ordinance, then he’d bring back the art administrator’s contract for reconsideration. Otherwise not. He doesn’t want to surprise anyone, he says.

8:24 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to give final approval to the public art ordinance amendment, allowing the return of Percent for Art money to its funds of origin.

8:25 p.m. DC-2 Return $957,140 from public art fund to funds of origin and establish timeline. This resolution would cancel the art project at Argo Cascades, resulting in a return of a total of $957,140 from the public art fund to the funds of origin. This resolution is sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

As a part of the council’s elimination of the Percent for Art funding mechanism last year, it established a new approach to funding public art, based on integrating public art into some selected city capital projects and pursuing a mix of private-public funding for other projects. Briere’s resolution also calls for the city administrator to direct city staff to develop a transition plan to the new program – to be implemented by staff and the public art commission and for that plan to be presented to the council in about a year – before March 2, 2015.

Briere’s resolution also calls for no additional projects to be initiated using funds set aside under the Percent for Art program. A further highlight of Briere’s resolution is direction to the city administrator to establish a budget for public art administration for both the 2015 and 2016 fiscal years. [An initial list of requests from department heads for FY 2015, released by the city on Feb. 10, shows an $80,000 request for arts administration, which includes funds for a full-time art administrator.]

8:26 p.m. Note that the council flipped the two resolutions on the agenda. Briere is now describing the rationale for her resolution.

8:28 p.m. Returning funds without committing to funding administration of the new public art program amounted to a “pocket veto,” Briere says, which she did not want to pursue. She felt that the Argo Cascades would not be able to be finished in the timeframe of the transition – given that it has stalled. That’s why her resolution does not leave funds for that project. If the council is going to move forward with a new art program, then the council needs a plan to move forward.

8:29 p.m. Petersen says that not returning the funds is a barrier to creating the kind of public art program that the community wants. She now proposes two amendments.

8:31 p.m. Petersen suggests that the report on the plan be due on Oct. 6, 2014 instead of March 2, 2015. Six months is a reasonable amount of time, she says. Briere and Kailasapathy are OK with that. Petersen’s amendment is accepted as friendly.

8:32 p.m. Petersen also wants to fund the Canoe Imagine Art project, which means that the total amount to be returned is $936,140. That’s also accepted as friendly.

8:34 p.m. Hupy is explaining the cost of the Canoe Imagine Art project – at the request of Warpehoski. There’s a $21,000 match requirement, Hupy says. The original plan was to raise $11,000 of that through fundraising. But the full amount could be provided by the city, Hupy says, if that’s what the council wants. Briere wants the city contribution to be just $10,000.

8:35 p.m. Hieftje calls it a worthy project. He doesn’t want to risk the match and wants to leave it as $21,000. Petersen also wants to leave it at $21,000.

8:36 p.m. Lumm allows that it’s unusual to have two competing resolutions. She supports the elements that overlap between the two resolutions. But she has a problem with establishing a budget for FY 2015 and 2016. It’s too vague. Where would the money come from? she asks.

8:38 p.m. Lumm says it’s clear that the council has different views on which projects should continue. “Keeping it simple is a good principle,” she says. Briere’s resolution is trying to do too much at once, Lumm says, offering a little something for everyone.

8:39 p.m. Kailasapathy identifies her problem with the resolution: establishing a budget for public art administration for FY 2015 and 2016. She has not come to terms with the nature of the priority for public art, she says. There are other competing needs for public services. She calls the resolution “open ended.” She says there’s a “public art fatigue” in the community.

8:41 p.m. Anglin alludes to private collaboration. He won’t support this resolution.

8:42 p.m. Warpehoski reviews the two points of Eaton’s bargain: return of the money and the funding of the part-time public art administrator. A third item on Warpehoski’s agenda is a good transition to the new public art program. He wants all three parts as part of a compromise.

8:44 p.m. During the public hearing on the ordinance, Warpehoski says that Partridge observed that public art has divided the community. Warpehoski notes that the regular annual budget process requires only six votes for amendment.

8:45 p.m. Petersen says that the ordinance revision approved in 2013 calls out a 2-3 year transition. Yes, the transition will take money, she says. Approval of the funds isn’t being requested, only a plan, Petersen adds.

8:47 p.m. Lumm says she doesn’t support the concept of a full-time public art administrator. She says she really doesn’t know what it means to establish a budget for FY 2015 and 2016. How much? Where will it come from? she asks. It’s way too vague, she says, with way too many unknowns. Drip by drip by drip, money is being spent, Lumm says. So she doesn’t want to wait until the regular budget process.

8:50 p.m. Kunselman says he won’t vote for either resolution. The issue can be left to the city administrator to put in the budget proposal for FY 2015, he indicates. The resolution directs Powers to do something that he needs to do anyway. As far as the money in the public art fund, FY 2014 is already appropriated, Kunselman notes. If there’s an emergency, then the council now has the ability to transfer money. He says it’s difficult to maintain the commitment to the transition when he’s being badgered by the members of the public art community. They say they don’t trust the council, Kunselman adds, but he doesn’t trust some of them. Still, it’s important to stay committed to the transition, he says. He points out that it will be difficult without a staff person between now and July when the new fiscal year begins.

8:52 p.m. Briere says she felt it was a logical step to discuss how to create a plan and a funding strategy for that plan at the same time that funds are being returned. She wants the city administrator to tell the council how much the transition is going to cost. Responding to Kunselman’s characterization of her resolution as micromanaging, Briere says she saw it as “reaffirming.”

8:53 p.m. Briere appreciates Kunselman’s view that it’s really a budget process discussion. But her concern is that the council is once again leaving AAPAC with uncertainly about what the city council is doing. Giving clear guidance is what the council is supposed to, she says.

8:54 p.m. Hieftje floats the idea of postponement. That motion is on the floor now.

8:55 p.m. Lumm doesn’t want to postpone. Hieftje reiterates that he wants to review the work of the council’s committee on public art from last year. It doesn’t do any harm to postpone, he says.

8:57 p.m. Eaton says the harm is that it puts the compromise in jeopardy, regarding the contract extension for the public art administrator. Eaton says he doesn’t think this resolution has the votes to pass. Hieftje says that the other one doesn’t have the votes to pass, either. Hieftje says that he can’t imagine public art in Ann Arbor without a public art administrator.

9:00 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone this resolution. Teall hesitated for several seconds before casting the final and deciding vote in the roll call. Voting for it besides Teall were Briere, Petersen, Kunselman, Warpehoski, and Hieftje.

9:01 p.m. DC-1 Return $819,005 from public art fund to funds of origin. This resolution would return $819,005 from the public art fund to the funds from which that money was drawn. That includes funds like the sanitary sewer fund and the street millage fund. This resolution is sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Jack Eaton (Ward 4), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). It requires eight votes on the 11-member council t pass. [For additional background, see Public Art above.]

9:02 p.m. Lumm is now reviewing the details of her resolution. The rationale for returning the funds is compelling, she says. She wants a “clean break.” It’s especially true when significant dollars are at stake, she says.

9:04 p.m. Eaton says that in addition to Lumm’s points, this approach sends an important message to the public art commission. It recognizes that the three projects have been approved. He doesn’t want AAPAC to get the message (as they would with Briere’s resolution) that if they don’t spend the money, then they lose it. He wants AAPAC to be “selective.”

9:07 p.m. Briere says that over a year ago, she and Lumm had come with different proposals about what to do if the public art millage failed. Lumm’s had been defeated, and Briere had withdrawn hers, she says. Instead, a council committee had been established. So she wants to postpone this. She ventures that it doesn’t have eight votes to pass. In an ideal world, she and Eaton and Kailasapathy and Lumm would iron out some differences. She hopes that some agreement could be reached before the next meeting.

9:08 p.m. Lumm says, “My breath is taken away.” She refers to Briere’s comments as a “lecture about an ideal world.” Lumm tells Briere a lot can be accomplished if people work together and that she wishes Briere had taken the opportunity to do that.

9:11 p.m. Kunselman is reviewing the specific ordinance language. He wants to make sure the city administrator could set up the FY 2105 budget with the money moved back to the funds of origin. City attorney Stephen Postema isn’t sure of the answer to Kunselman’s question. Kunselman says he supports postponement.

9:13 p.m. Hieftje is asking Hupy about the matching grant that the Canoe Imagine Art needs. The state seems to need a commitment from the city on that sooner rather than later.

9:16 p.m. Hieftje seems to be floating the idea of funding the Canoe Imagine Art from the money earmarked for the Argo Cascades project. He asks for a friendly amendment that would fund the Canoe Imagine Art project. Briere also wants $5,000 for the Coleman Jewett memorial chair.

9:16 p.m. Eaton says there’s no time pressure on the Jewett project.

9:19 p.m. Kunselman says: “I’m getting really confused.” If the council does nothing, then the money is there available to AAPAC. They might not have a public administrator to assist them, yet they’d have some assistance. Some back and forth between Hieftje and Kunselman ensues. Hieftje says he’s trying to save the part-time administrator’s contract as a part of the compromise.

9:19 p.m. Lumm says that she’ll support the $5,000 for the Jewett memorial.

9:20 p.m. Briere says she’s not sure there’s enough affirmative votes to pass it. Her own bias it to “postpone the thing” and work out the details. She won’t withdraw the motion to postpone.

9:21 p.m. Kunselman says if it’s postponed and a single resolution comes back, then he’d reconsider his position and possibly vote to support it.

9:23 p.m. Eaton tells Hieftje that if this is postponed, then he’ll move for reconsideration, as long as no one yells “Shame on you!” at him. This was an allusion to Warpehoski’s outburst at the Feb. 3 meeting, following the council’s rejection of a contract extension for the public art administrator.

9:23 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to postpone this resolution as well.

9:24 p.m. Recess. We are now in recess.

9:39 p.m. Here’s the email to Kunselman from Powers, backing Kunselman’s position that the DDA didn’t file its TIF annual reports in a timely way: [.pdf of Feb. 17, 2014 Powers email] We’re still in recess. Several conversational pods. WEMU is interviewing everyone in sight.

9:41 p.m. We’re back.

9:41 p.m. DB-1 Adopt Green Streets stormwater guidelines. This resolution sets infiltration standards to be followed whenever a city street is reconstructed. The “green streets” policy initiative came at the direction of the city council in a July 2, 2012 resolution.

9:43 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) says he’s glad to see this on the agenda. He’s complimentary of the work the environmental commission and its water committee did. The council had provided general policy guidance, he says, but the commission and its committee had done the work that lets the council takes this step.

9:46 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asks Craig Hupy to come to the podium. She asks for construction cost premiums. Hupy indicates the policy is to look at each site and to look at the toolbox of options that are available. It may or may not be expensive, he says.

9:48 p.m. Hupy clarifies that the city is moving away from using porous pavement. Given 400 miles of standard pavement, he ventured that it was unlikely that a few blocks of porous pavement would be treated with its particular maintenance needs. The strategy is now to put a rock bed under the roadway. The expectation is for the water to drain through it. Briere asks how deep. They’re about 10-12 feet comes the answer from Jen Lawson in the audience. Lawson is the city’s water resources manager.

9:50 p.m. Kunselman ventures that this policy reflects what the city has already been doing. Hupy confirms that. Kunselman asks if the policy will allow the city to qualify for grants. Hupy says the city has received grants before having a policy. The grant availability, however, is diminishing, just as the city is adopting a formal policy.

9:51 p.m. Anglin says thank you to the staff. People have worked on this for at least 10 years, he says. He cites the Carusos specifically. It’s about flood control, he says. Anglin says he’s supportive of buying land to detain water.

9:52 p.m. Hupy invites Jen Lawson to stand up to be acknowledged. She gets a quick round of applause.

9:52 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to adopt Green Streets guidelines.

[Ed. note: In the original live update file, the descriptions of DB-2 and DB-3 below were erroneously flipped.] 

9:52 p.m. DB-2 Development rights on the White property. This resolution would approve expenditure of money from the city’s greenbelt program to help acquire development rights on a 64-acre property on Zeeb Road, in Scio Township. For this deal, the city is contributing $39,000 to the total purchase price of $130,335, with the township contributing the remainder. [For additional background, see Land: Greenbelt above.]

9:53 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to approve expenditure of greenbelt funds to acquire development rights on the Moore White property.

9:53 p.m. DB-3 Development rights on Moore property. This resolution would approve expenditure of money from the city’s greenbelt program to help acquire development rights on a 24-acre parcel just north of the Huron River in Scio Township. The city of Ann Arbor will be contributing $25,200 to the total $84,000 cost of purchasing development rights, with the township contributing the difference. [For additional background, see Land: Greenbelt above.]

9:54 p.m. Lumm says she’ll support this. Scio Township is paying 70% of the price. She says that this is consistent with the greenbelt guidelines, so she’ll support it.

9:55 p.m. Kunselman says he won’t support this. It’s isolated from other greenbelt properties, he says. It’s just providing open space for people who live in Loch Alpine.

9:56 p.m. Outcome: Outcome: The council has voted 8-2 to approve expenditure of greenbelt funds to acquire development rights on the White Moore property. Dissenting were Kunselman and Kailasapathy.

9:56 p.m. DS-1 Approve Blue Cross Blue Shield renewal contracts. This resolution renews the city’s contract with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan for the current calendar year, from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014 to provide health care coverage to city employees, their eligible dependents, retirees, and their eligible dependents. The amount indicated in the resolution is $1,437,042.

9:56 p.m. Lumm says the city has a good strategy on stop-loss.

9:56 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract extension with Blue Cross Blue Shield.

9:56 p.m. DS-2 Apply for firefighter training facility grant. This resolution would approve a $334,140 grant application to the 2013 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security – to acquire a mobile training facility to train firefighters. The 48-foot-long unit will allow live fire and tactical simulations. The kind of unit that the grant money, if awarded, would allow the city to purchase is comparable to this: [.pdf of brochure for training unit] [For additional background, see Equipment: Firefighting Simulator above.]

9:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the grant application to purchase a mobile firefighter training facility.

9:57 p.m. DS-3 Purchase road salt. The resolution would authorize the purchase of an additional $47,200 worth of road salt.

9:58 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the road salt purchase.

9:58 p.m. DS-4 Purchase sewer truck. The council is being asked to approve the $441,535 purchase of a combination sewer truck, which is outfitted with a vacuum device – often used to control water in an excavation during the repair of a water main break. [For additional background, see Equipment: Water Main Breaks above.]

10:01 p.m. “This is really exciting because this is a big piece of equipment!” says Kunselman. Hupy says that his wife describes the truck as looking “like an elephant going down the road.” Kunselman says this is the kind of truck that was used to repair a water main break in his neighborhood. The equipment provides for worker safety, Kunselman says. “Vactors make the best pumps out there,” Hupy says.

10:01 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the purchase of a sewer truck.

10:01 p.m. DS-5 Approve purchase of hydraulic excavator. The council is being asked to approve the purchase a hydraulic excavator for $176,472. The equipment is used for repairing water main breaks. [For additional background, see Equipment: Water Main Breaks above.]

10:03 p.m. Lumm wants to know if it’s worth $68,000 more. Hupy says it speeds up being able to do the repair when the water main is deep. If you’re one of the folks doing the work, it might have a different value, he says.

10:04 p.m. Briere asks if the city is retaining an excavator that digs shallower. Yes, explains Hupy.

10:04 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the purchase of a hydraulic excavator.

10:05 p.m. DS-6 Right of first refusal on Edwards Brothers property. This resolution was postponed from the council’s Feb. 3 meeting. It would approve the city’s exercise of its right of first refusal on the 16.7-acre Edwards Brothers Malloy property. The University of Michigan has offered $12.8 million for the land. [For additional background, see Land: Edwards Brothers Malloy Property above.]

10:06 p.m. Lumm makes a motion to go into closed session under Michigan’s Open Meetings Act. The council votes to do so, over dissent from Kunselman.

10:06 p.m. Closed session. We’re in closed session under the OMA exception for land acquisition.

10:21 p.m. Only seven in the audience here in chambers. Planning manager Wendy Rampson is chatting with community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl.

10:29 p.m. We’re back.

10:31 p.m. The council is now in open session again.

10:31 p.m. Lumm moves to postpone the Edwards Brothers item until a special session on Feb. 24 at 7 p.m.

10:32 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone the vote on the city’s right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers property until a special session on Feb. 24

10:34 p.m. Communications from council. Kunselman is talking about Mary Beth Doyle Park. He’s happy that the asphalt paths will have snow cleared. He appreciates city staff’s work with the Washtenaw County water resources office to ensure that the paths can be treated.

10:36 p.m. Kunselman also announces his intent to bring forward a repeal to the contribution in lieu (CIL) ordinance for parking requirements. [That allows developers to satisfy on-site parking requirements by purchasing monthly permits in the public parking system.] And he says he’ll bring forward an amendment to the city’s crosswalk ordinance to make it consistent with the wording of mayor John Hieftje’s veto. [That involves insertion of a requirement for motorists to stop, if they "can do so safely."] He calls the Edwards Brothers question “speculative development.” He ventures that it would be prudent for the council to engage in a conversation about that regarding the Library Lane site. He’s trying to do his part by learning more about the Build America Bonds used to construct the Library Lane underground parking garage. He wants to review the “as built” documents for the structure. He says that he wants to handle the property above the Library Lane structure in a way that’s similar to the way the council handled the old Y lot – by hiring a broker and putting the air rights up for sale.

10:40 p.m. Reconsideration of public art administrator’s contract. Eaton moves to re-open the agenda. The council approves the agenda amendment to include the resolution on the public art administrator’s contract that was defeated on Feb. 3. Eaton moves the resolution’s reconsideration. The council then agrees to postpone.

10:41 p.m. Outcome: The council postpones this until March 3, 2014.

10:42 p.m. Communications from the city attorney. City attorney Stephen Postema gets clarification about whether the council wants a closed session to be part of the Feb. 24 special meeting agenda. That is what the council wants.

10:43 p.m. Clerk’s report. Kailasapathy asks about a note from the state tax commission about tribunals. CFO Tom Crawford says there will be follow-up from the city administrator.

10:43 p.m. Public commentary general time. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

10:45 p.m. Thomas Partridge says he was up almost all night last night due to a landscaping company’s snow removal activity. Snow removal is important, he says, but it’s not being done responsibly. Giant piles of salt-laden snow and ice are at the shopping centers, he says. Partridge wants the council to establish an ordinance regulating snow removal.

10:46 p.m. Kai Petainen is now at the podium, and he says “I’m not here to complain.” He’s from Sault Ste. Marie he says, and the city has done a great job with snow removal.

10:48 p.m. Ed Vielmetti tells the council he attended the last building board of appeals meeting and says it’s good to see progress, even if it’s slow. He also raises issues about late filing of meeting minutes from various boards and commissions. He says he doesn’t know what reasonable expectations might be for meeting minutes, but thinks it’d be useful for the city administrator to set appropriate expectations.

10:50 p.m. Margie Teall (Ward 4) is responding to Partridge’s complaint about noise during snow removal. She allows it’s a problem. She mentions the noise ordinance and suggests that a call to the police desk would result in action.

10:50 p.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

A sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chambers gives instructions for post-meeting clean-up.

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Chart 1: AAATA Millage Vote Survey. Of the 841 registered voters surveyed, 63% said they would definitely or probably vote for an additional transit tax, while 31% said they definitely or probably would vote against an additional transit tax. Half the respondents were asked about a tax at the rate of 0.5 mills while the other half were asked about a 0.9 mill tax. There was not a significant difference in the two groups. The amount of the potential millage request in 2014 is 0.7 mills.

The AAATA’s release of partial survey results on Feb. 7 comes about two weeks before the next monthly meeting of its board of directors, on Feb. 20. At that meeting, the board will almost certainly consider whether to place a millage on the ballot – either for May 6 or later in the fall of this year.

The purpose of the potential millage – which would be the first one ever levied by the AAATA – would be to fund a 5-year plan of service improvements, approved by the AAATA board at its Jan. 16, 2014 meeting. The millage itself would last for five years.

Generally, those improvements include increased frequency during peak hours, extended service in the evenings, and additional service on weekends. Some looped routes are being replaced with out-and-back type route configurations. The plan does not include operation of rail-based services. The AAATA has calculated that the improvements in service add up to 90,000 additional service hours per year, compared to the current service levels, which is a 44% increase.

If a millage were approved in May, those improvements that involve extending the hours of service later in the evening and the weekend could begin to be implemented by late 2014. However, increases in frequency along routes, which would require acquisition of additional buses, would take longer.

The AAATA refers to the plan in its communications as the 5YTIP. The AAATA has calculated that the additional tax required to fund the 5YTIP is 0.7 mills. A draft five-year plan was presented to the public in a series of 13 meetings in the fall of 2013. Changes to the five-year plan made in response to public feedback were included in the board’s information packet for the Jan. 16 meeting. [.pdf of memo and 5-year improvement plan] [.pdf of presentation made to the board on Jan. 16]

The dedicated transit tax already paid by property owners in Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti is levied by each city and passed through to the AAATA. Those taxes would stay in place if voters in the AAATA’s three-jurisdiction area approved a 0.7 mill tax. For Ann Arbor, the rate for the existing millage is 2.056 mills, which is expected to generate a little over $10 million by 2019, the fifth year of the transportation improvement plan. For the city of Ypsilanti, the rate for the existing transit millage is 0.9789, which is expected to generate about $314,000 in 2019. For the owner of an Ann Arbor house with a market value of $200,000 and taxable value of $100,000, a 0.7 mill tax translates into $70 annually, which would be paid in addition to the existing transit millage. The total Ann Arbor transit tax paid on a taxable value of $100,000 would be about $270 a year.

The transit improvement program also calls for an additional $1,087,344 to come from purchase-of-service agreements (POSAs), based on increased service hours in Pittsfield, Saline, and Superior townships.

A subset of a financial task force that had formed during an effort in 2012 to expand the AAATA to a countywide authority has concluded that the 0.7 mill would be adequate to fund the planned additional services. At the most recent meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, on Feb. 5, DDA board member Bob Guenzel stated that he had continued to participate on that task force, and reported that the group had forwarded its finding on the currently contemplated 0.7 millage to the AAATA.

Besides Guenzel, who is former Washtenaw County administrator, the current configuration of that group includes Mary Jo Callan (director of the Washtenaw County office of community and economic development), Norman Herbert (former treasurer of the University of Michigan), Paul Krutko (CEO of Ann Arbor SPARK), and Mark Perry (director of real estate services, Masco Corp.) and Steve Manchester.

The survey on voter attitudes toward a millage was conducted for the AAATA by CJI Research with a mixed methodology – of telephone contacts, and a mail invitation to respond online – during October and November of 2013. The sample of respondents was divided into two groups – those who were asked about their attitudes toward an additional 0.5-mill tax and those who were asked about their attitudes toward an additional 0.9-mill tax. According to CJI, the groups showed virtually no difference in the distribution of responses.

Of the 841 registered voters surveyed, 63% said they would definitely or probably vote for an additional transit tax, while 31% said they definitely or probably would vote against an additional transit tax.

The Feb. 7, 2014 press release issued by the AAATA highlighted three of its conclusions from the survey results: (1) that the AAATA is highly regarded by voters in the three member jurisdictions; (2) residents in Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township are supportive of transit service expansion even if it means a new tax; and (3) among survey respondents, the best reasons to support a transit expansion are to help retain and attract jobs, generate economic activity by taking customers and workers to area retailers and other employers, and to improve service for seniors and the disabled. The margin of error for the survey was no more than 3.4%, according to the press release.

At the Jan. 16 AAATA board meeting, board chair Charles Griffith indicated that he felt the board would be taking the next step on implementing the program very soon. That indicates a probable vote on the millage question at the next board meeting, on Feb. 20. If the board voted then to put a millage question on the ballot, that would be in time to meet the Feb. 25 deadline for a millage request to be placed on the May 6, 2014 ballot.

A new millage would be decided by a majority vote of all three member jurisdictions of the AAATA. The two Ypsilanti jurisdictions were added as members of the AAATA just last year. The Ann Arbor city council voted to approve changes to the AAATA’s articles of incorporation – to admit the city and the township of Ypsilanti as members – at its June 3, 2013 and Nov. 18, 2013 meetings, respectively.

This most recent survey conducted by CJI is the third biennial study the AAATA has commissioned, starting in 2009. The 63% positive attitude in this most recent survey – confined to just the three member jurisdictions of the AAATA – is somewhat stronger than the support measured among residents countywide in 2009 and 2011. Results from all survey years are shown in Chart 1 and Chart 2 below:

Chart 1: AAATA Millage Vote Survey. Of the 841 registered voters surveyed in the cities of Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti Township, 63% said they would definitely or probably vote for an additional transit tax, while 31% said they definitely or probably would vote against an additional transit tax.

Chart 2: Millage Vote 2009 and 2011 Surveys. Asked early in the survey if they would support a 1 mill tax for countywide transit, 54% of survey respondents countywide said they definitely or probably would. Asked later in the survey, a combined 59% of voters said they’d probably or definitely vote for a 1 mill transit tax.

The geographic distribution of support for the most recent survey showed strongest support in the city of Ann Arbor (66% definitely/probably yes), followed closely by the city of Ypsilanti (65% definitely/probably yes), followed by Ypsilanti Township (57% definitely/probably yes). Opposition was flipped from support, with 28% of city of Ann Arbor voters saying they’d definitely/probably vote no, 31% of city of Ypsilanti voters definitely/probably voting no, and 36% of Ypsilanti Township voters definitely/probably voting no. The city of Ypsilanti had the fewest number of undecided voters: 4%. Those results are shown in Chart 3:

Chart 3: Millage Vote Geographic Distribution 2013 Stacked bars indicate by geographic location those who said they’d definitely or probably vote yes on  a transit tax (blue), definitely or probably vote no (red) or didn’t know (yellow). (Data from the AAATA, chart by The Chronicle)

That’s similar to the support measured in those same specific areas two years ago. In 2011, support for a transit tax was strongest within the city of Ann Arbor, with 24% saying they would definitely vote yes and another 44% saying they’d probably vote yes, for a total of 68%. In that year, the two Ypsilanti-area jurisdictions were grouped with Pittsfield Township. About 56% of Ypsilanti-area plus Pittsfield said they would definitely or probably support a millage. Those results from past years are shown in Chart 4:

Chart 4: Millage Vote Geographic Distribution 2011. The light and dark green areas reflecting definite or probable yes votes on a transit tax diminish the further away that respondents were from Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti.

All the surveys attempted to measure how effective respondents think arguments are – for and against a transit tax. This year’s survey results were in at least some ways consistent with previous years’ surveys: Additional service for seniors and those with disabilities is seen as a persuasive argument to support a transit tax. Those results are presented in Chart 5 and Chart 6 below.

Chart 5: Arguments for Public Transit – Fall 2013 Survey. Perceived as the best argument for supporting a transit tax was the importance of transit service for seniors and those with disabilities. Perceived as less persuasive arguments were the ideas that the member jurisdictions need a faster way to get places and that transit is important to protect the environment.

Chart 6: Arguments for Public Transit – 2011 Survey. The idea that “If the tax is defeated, there will be no funding for door-to-door service for the disabled” was not one that survey respondents felt was a good argument to vote for a transit tax. It comes across negatively and people react negatively to it.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already on board The Chronicle bus, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Charles Beatty Jr. attended the Sept. 4 Washtenaw County board of commissioners meeting to accept a resolution in honor of his father, Charles Beatty Sr. The board supports naming the Head Start building at 1661 LeForge in Ypsilanti – owned by the county – in honor of the late Charles Beatty Sr., who was influential in early childhood education. (Photos by the writer.)

For the site at 2260 and 2270 Platt Road – the former juvenile center – staff have proposed a process that focuses on possibly using the site for affordable housing. A $100,000 planning grant is available to explore that option. However, several commissioners – while expressing support for affordable housing in general – wanted to look at a broader range of alternatives, including the possibility of selling the site, which some believe could be worth $2 million. After more than an hour of debate, the board voted to postpone action until its Sept. 18 meeting, directing staff to prepare an alternative resolution to consider.

Another lengthy debate focused on the funding mechanism for new trial court software, estimated to cost $2.3 million. The vendor of the current system went out of business several years ago, and replacement is critical. Donald Shelton, chief judge of the trial court, told commissioners: “If this [software] system goes down, our judicial system in the county simply stops operating.”

Some commissioners wanted a more formal mechanism to repay the county’s investment in the system, which includes nearly $1.3 million from capital reserves. The board eventually passed a resolution stating that revenues from the court’s electronic filing fees will be used to reimburse the capital reserves. E-filing fees – likely to be $6 per filing – are expected initially to generate only about $45,000 in revenues. The e-filing will start with civil cases, with phased roll-out to other cases, including criminal and probate. At some point, e-filing might become mandatory.

A range of other significant action items yielded far less discussion. The board gave initial approval to a new micro loan program for small businesses, to be managed by the Center for Empowerment and Economic Development. Also getting initial approval was a range of grants administered by the county’s office of community & economic development, as well as a resolution that would give blanket approval in the future to nearly 30 annual entitlement grants received by the county totaling an estimated $8.8 million, beginning in 2014. Currently, each of those grants requires separate annual approval by the board.

Commissioners also gave initial approval to strengthen the county’s affirmative action plan, as well as other nondiscrimination in employment-related policies. The primary change adds a prohibition of discrimination on the basis of gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation. Community activist Jim Toy and Jason Morgan, who serves on the board of the Jim Toy Community Center, spoke during public commentary to support the changes.

Other items receiving an initial vote from the board include: (1) adding three new full-time jobs for stewardship of the county nature preserves; (2) adding a new 10-bed treatment program for female teens in the county’s youth center that will create a net increase of 5.46 jobs; and (3) budgets for the county’s public health and community support & treatment service (CSTS) departments.

During the meeting, the board also honored the nonprofit Dawn Farm on its 40th anniversary, and recognized Bill McFarlane, the long-time Superior Township supervisor who recently announced his resignation due to health issues. Commissioners also supported renaming the county-owned Head Start building in Ypsilanti in honor of the late Charles Beatty Sr., a pioneer in early childhood education.

Topics that emerged during public commentary included a plea to urge state legislators to repeal Michigan’s version of a “stand your ground” law. Board chair Yousef Rabhi indicated his intent to bring forward such a resolution on Sept. 18 – similar to one passed by the Ann Arbor city council on Aug. 8, 2013. Rabhi also plans to introduce a resolution on Sept. 18 advocating for stronger cleanup standards of 1,4 dioxane – the contaminant in an underground plume caused by Pall-Gelman’s Scio Township operations. The Ann Arbor city council passed a resolution on Sept. 3, 2013 related to this issue.

Also on Sept. 18, a public hearing will be held to get input on a proposed increase to the Washtenaw County tax that supports services for indigent veterans and their families. The current rate is 0.0286 mills – or 1/35th of a mill. The new proposed rate of 1/30th of a mill would be levied in December 2013 to fund services in 2014. It’s expected to generate $463,160 in revenues. The public hearing was scheduled by commissioners at their Sept. 4 meeting.

Platt Road Property

The Sept. 4 agenda included a resolution to create an advisory group to look at options for the county-owned Platt Road site in Ann Arbor, where the old juvenile center was located. [.pdf of Platt Road staff memo]

The idea of an advisory committee to help with the dispensation of this property was first floated at the board’s July 10, 2013 meeting, as part of a final vote on an overall strategic space plan for county facilities. The space plan proposed demolishing the former juvenile center and exploring redevelopment of the site at 2260 and 2270 Platt Road for affordable housing, alternative energy solutions, and county offices. Details of how the advisory committee would be appointed, as well as the committee’s formal mission, was an item to be worked out for a board vote at a later date.

Those details were brought forward on Sept. 4. The original Sept. 4 resolution called for a nine-member committee with the following composition:

• 2 county commissioners
• 1 Ann Arbor city councilmember
• 2 residents from the adjacent neighborhood
• The executive director of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission [Jennifer L. Hall]
• The director of Washtenaw County parks & recreation [Bob Tetens]
• The director of the Washtenaw County office of community & economic development [Mary Jo Callan]
• The Washtenaw County infrastructure management director [Greg Dill]

The timeline called for at least three committee meetings with a consultant later this year to develop the community design process, followed by public workshops in January of 2014. A final plan with recommendations would be completed and presented to the county board by May of 2014.

The proposal was heavily oriented toward the option of putting affordable housing on that site, which raised concerns for several commissioners. A staff memo listed several elements that would be explored, including: (1) affordable rental housing by the Ann Arbor housing commission; (2) an affordable housing green demonstration pilot project; (3) connection to the adjacent County Farm Park; (4) ReImagine Washtenaw Avenue design principles; and (5) other identified community priorities, such as geothermal, solar panels or community gardens.

According to the staff memo, the planning work would be funded by $100,000 in grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Michigan State Housing Development Authority, with funds to support the development of affordable housing. The money was part of a $3 million federal grant awarded to the county in 2011 and administered by the county’s office of community & economic development (OCED).

Platt Road Property: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) noted that the resolution didn’t include the option of selling the land. Perhaps it makes sense to include a real estate agent among the list of advisory committee members, he said. He hadn’t heard commissioners reach consensus about ruling out the option of selling the land – either in part or in its entirety.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) expressed surprise about the resolution, implying that there must have been other meetings about this topic that he didn’t know about. He said he had supported the concept of looking at options for the property, which he believed could be valued at $2 million or more. He supported involvement of neighbors in giving input into the property’s future.

However, the resolution before them was more far-reaching than he had expected, Peterson said. He felt it was earmarking money for an initiative – affordable housing – that the board hadn’t discussed or approved. He expressed concern for the county’s overall budget, noting that there will be cuts made in the coming year.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) replied to Petersen, noting that the resolution passed by the board on July 10 had included an amendment to the language, in order to address concerns that Peterson had raised at that meeting – including an explicit statement that the board had ultimate control over what happens to the Platt Road site.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) had been integral in putting together this resolution, Rabhi noted, because the property is in LaBarre’s district. Rabhi assured Peterson that he hadn’t missed any meetings, and that this resolution was an evolution from the July 10 discussion.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) told Peterson he was excited by this community process. Smith wanted to understand Peterson’s concern: Was it that there aren’t sufficient options cited in the resolution? Peterson replied that the planning process is tapping into funding that hadn’t been approved by the board. He wondered where the money had come from, and whether it could be used for other projects.

Brett Lenart, OCED’s housing and infrastructure manager, reiterated information from the staff memo – that the funding came from a HUD sustainable communities regional planning grant. The overall grant is funding the Washtenaw Avenue corridor project and a range of other efforts, he said. The Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) committed $100,000 in matching funds. One component of those matching funds is furthering sustainable solutions for at-risk populations, he said.

Lenart told commissioners that the Platt Road site seemed like a good opportunity to marry a county asset with the affordable housing goals supported by the grant. It’s near the Washtenaw Avenue corridor, near public transportation and job opportunities.

2270 Platt Road – on the west side of Platt, south of County Farm Park.

Conan Smith clarified with Lenart that the funds must be used for planning. Smith then said he agreed with Peterson in that the resolution didn’t direct the advisory committee to explore a broad range of options. “We’re pre-determining the outcome for this site, with this resolution,” Smith said. “We’re going to angle it toward affordable housing in some way.”

Lenart replied that the staff is suggesting that the primary discussion for the site should focus on affordable housing. If these grant funds are used for planning, then there needs to be a good faith effort to advance the cause of affordable housing, he said.

Conan Smith noted that the board hasn’t discussed whether affordable housing is its priority for the Platt Road property. He said he shared Peterson’s concern in that regard.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) said he hadn’t known about this proposal, even though he’s a member of the county’s space committee. He also objected to having four directors on the advisory committee, suggesting that they could delegate that responsibility.

Sizemore asked what the $100,000 would be used for. Lenart replied that it would be used for a community design process, including fees for architects and consultants to run the public meetings and develop recommendations. Sizemore expressed skepticism about using that amount simply for planning. “I just don’t like the way this looks,” he said, to spend that much money just to tell the board what they should do with 13-14 acres of land. “If you’ve got that kind of money to throw around, then I think we’ve got a big problem.”

Lenart noted that if the planning funds aren’t spent at the Platt Road site, then the funds will be used for planning at other locations that might be suitable for affordable housing.

LaBarre reported that he’s talked to residents in these neighborhoods, and no one ever brought up the option of selling that site. This process is inclusive, he said, and he supported it. Commissioners won’t be obligated to act on the recommendations that will be delivered as the result of this process, he noted.

Brett Lenart, housing and community infrastructure manager for the county’s office of community & economic development (OCED). Seated next to him is Mary Jo Callan, OCED director.

Dan Smith stated his priorities for the property. He’d like to sell the portion along Platt Road, and reserve a portion adjacent to County Farm Park to make a greenway or park. He noted that 5 out of the 9 committee members, as proposed, are either commissioners or staff. If the board really wants diverse input, then they should get rid of some of the county representatives and include more residents.

Dan Smith also cautioned against asking citizens to do a lot of work on this committee, only to have it possibly ignored by the board. He felt commissioners should have a better idea of its priorities for the site, before asking an advisory committee to make recommendations.

Peterson said he didn’t mind exploring options or including citizen input. But it’s important that the board make sure the community receives the full value from that property, regardless of what is done with it. But the proposed resolution leads the county into the housing business, he said, and that concerns him. Peterson added that he doesn’t know what other affordable housing options are in the works, or what other planning efforts might benefit from this $100,000.

Rabhi read from the original July 10 resolution – specifically, LaBarre’s amendment that had been added to create the advisory committee. Rabhi also noted the additional language that had been included as a friendly amendment to address Peterson’s concerns at the time [italics include friendly amendment language]:

Be it further resolved that the board of commissioners create a nine-member Platt Road community advisory committee to review and develop a recommendation for the disposition of the county’s Platt Road site. The composition and charge of the advisory committee will be determined by the board of commissioners at a later date, provided however that the board of commissioners shall have the authority to ultimately determine the disposition of the Platt Road site.

Peterson said he’d given his trust when he voted for that resolution on July 10. He had assumed that names of people to serve on the committee would be brought forward. He didn’t know any other plans were in the works.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) indicated that she thought the committee would bring forward pros and cons for each option for the site, not just one recommendation. It seemed like the committee was being directed to lean toward one option, without exploring the full spectrum. Lenart replied that the intent is to present a concept for affordable housing at that site, that’s rooted in information and community input. He said if there’s no interest on the board in pursuing affordable housing there, then OCED would find another project that could use the planning funds.

Conan Smith floated the idea of amending the resolution to call for the advisory committee to deliver an initial high-level alternatives analysis, with a recommendation. Then the board could direct the committee and staff to implement the planning process for whatever alternative is chosen.

Platt Road Property: Board Discussion – Amendment

Dan Smith proposed amending the resolution to create more diversity on the committee – adding an Ann Arbor city council designee and three county residents, including one with real estate experience. Alicia Ping (R-District 3) objected to singling out Ann Arbor for additional representation. Although the land is located in Ann Arbor, it’s owned by the county – paid for by all county taxpayers, she noted. Yousef Rabhi proposed alternative wording, considered as a friendly amendment to Smith’s version, to add four slots to the committee for Washtenaw County residents, including at least one with experience in real estate.

Outcome on amendment: It passed on a 6-3 vote, over dissent from Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6), Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) and Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

Platt Road Property: Board Discussion – Final Debate

Alicia Ping asked additional questions about the planning grant. Brett Lenart explained that it couldn’t be used to plan exclusively for a park or commercial development – and that affordable housing had to be at least considered in good faith in order for the planning grant to be used.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8).

Ping thought Ronnie Peterson had raised some good points, and she felt more comfortable doing a high-level alternatives analysis, as Conan Smith had proposed.

Andy LaBarre noted that the resolution passed by eight commissioners on July 10 – Rolland Sizemore Jr. had been absent – called for a nine-member advisory committee to review and develop a recommendation for the disposition of the Platt Road site. He sensed that there wasn’t support for the current resolution, but he hoped it wouldn’t cause them to “piddle away time on this unnecessarily.” If the board wants to do something with the site, they should make that decision relatively quickly, he said. Whatever they do, LaBarre said, he would advocate for involving residents near the site.

Yousef Rabhi asked how other funds from the $3 million grant were being spent. Lenart replied that the grant was funding planning efforts for the Washtenaw Avenue corridor, working to strengthen neighborhood groups and associations, helping new tenants at the Hamilton Crossing complex in Ypsilanti with literacy, budgeting and other life skills, and improving pedestrian crossings on the south side of Ypsilanti. The grant also had funded some of the work for the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s Connecting William Street project, he said, and is paying for the Arts Alliance to incorporate public art into some infrastructure projects.

Rabhi clarified with Lenart that affordable housing must be considered in order for the planning to be eligible for this grant funding, but affordable housing doesn’t have to be part of the final recommendation. The key is that affordable housing will be part of the discussion, Rabhi said, along with other options. He added that no commissioner is opposed to affordable housing.

Peterson agreed, saying that the issue is the proper use of this grant funding. He noted that the eastern part of the county, which he represents, is the reason why this kind of funding is available to the county – because of the low income residents there. He hoped the board could establish a committee with no budget. He didn’t think this grant was the appropriate funding mechanism, and he didn’t think OCED was the appropriate department to handle this project. The facilities staff should be in charge, he said, noting that the county has policies and procedures for the disposal of property.

Rabhi then suggested tabling the item until the board’s Sept. 18 meeting. He asked Greg Dill, the county’s infrastructure management director, to work with commissioners and staff to bring forward an alternative resolution on Sept. 18.

Dan Smith moved to postpone the resolution.

Outcome: The motion to postpone passed unanimously.

Trial Court Software

At their Sept. 4 meeting, commissioners acted on two items related to a new case management software system for the Washtenaw County trial court.

Donald Shelton, chief judge of the Washtenaw County trial court.

The board was asked to give final approval to the selection of a new record-keeping software system for the court that’s estimated to cost $2.3 million. The Tyler Odyssey Case Records Management System will replace an outdated software system that hasn’t been supported by the previous vendor since 2005, when the vendor went out of business.

The original resolution, put forward at the board’s Aug. 7, 2013 meeting, had identified the following funding sources for this project: (1) a $551,998 refund from the state related to an unfinished pilot project; (2) $200,000 from an anticipated 2013 surplus in the trial court budget; (3) $700,000 from the county’s IT fund balance; and (4) $899,463 from the county’s capital reserves, to be repaid with any trial court surplus starting in 2014.

However, some commissioners weren’t comfortable with the funding sources that were identified, so an alternative resolution was brought forward during the Aug. 7 meeting that did not include references to funding sources. An amendment to that alternative resolution – made after considerable discussion and procedural maneuverings – stated that the board approved the selection of this software system, and directed the county administrator to develop a maintenance and implementation plan, and to identify funding sources by the time of the board’s Sept. 4 meeting.

The funding sources were identified in a separate Sept. 4 resolution: (1) a $551,998 refund from the state related to an unfinished pilot project; (2) $200,000 from an anticipated 2013 surplus in the trial court budget; (3) $300,000 from the county’s IT fund balance; and (4) $1,299,463 from the county’s capital reserves, to be repaid with any trial court surplus starting in 2014.

A staff memo accompanying the funding resolution also notes that an annual software maintenance and support fee – starting at $188,933 – will be offset by revenue from fees associated with all Washtenaw County trial court electronic filing.

Commissioners discussed the approach to funding for about an hour on Sept. 4 with Donald Shelton, chief judge of the trial court.

Trial Court Software: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) asked to pull out the funding resolution for a separate vote.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) asked about the maintenance funding. Beyond the fees from e-filing, how will the rest of the annual maintenance costs be paid for? Greg Dill, director of infrastructure management, replied that costs would be covered from the county’s IT maintenance fund.

In response to another query from Ping, chief judge Donald Shelton said that the e-filing fee is in addition to the regular filing fee. It’s estimated to be $6 per filing, with an initial annual projection of $45,000 in revenues. The e-filing will start with civil cases, with phased roll-out to other cases, including criminal and probate. Eventually, he added, it will likely be mandatory to file documents electronically. So those initial annual revenue estimates, which Shelton characterized as conservative, are expected to increase. All revenues from e-filing will be used to offset the annual maintenance costs. Revenues will increase as more documents get filed electronically, and savings from not using paper documents will also increase, he said.

What happens when the e-filing revenues exceed the maintenance costs: Who gets the extra revenue? Ping wondered. Shelton recalled that when he was mayor of Saline, someone pointed out that action being taken might create a parking problem. “I said, ‘Oh, I pray for a parking problem downtown every day,’” Shelton joked. He said it’s not the court’s intention to profit from e-filing, other than to cover costs to support the system.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) explains that her husband – attorney David Shand – showed her how he could access documents electronically from other county courts on his phone.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) pointed out that the previous resolution had indicated that e-filing revenues would be used to pay back the county’s capital reserves. Now, it’s flipped, he said – the e-filing is going to cover operating (maintenance) costs, and are not repaying the county’s capitalization of the system.

Dill said the funding model is very much the same as the original proposal. The county administration has talked to the trial court about reducing its operating budget by $200,000 annually, Dill said. Those reductions can be applied to repay the county’s capital reserves, which are helping to fund the initial cost of the new system.

Shelton added that this new system will enable the trial court to meet its targets for structural budget reductions. He pointed out that for eight years, the court’s software wasn’t supported by the vendor because that company went out of business. So during that time, the county didn’t pay annual maintenance costs. That’s almost $700,000 that wasn’t spent, he said, because the court has been “limping along in our Studebaker.” The court was able to do that because one of its employees was able to keep the system running. However, that employee is no longer working for the county. “If this system goes down, our judicial system in the county simply stops operating,” Shelton said.

Shelton noted that an estimated 40% of the county residents will come into contact with the judicial system at some point in their lives – for things like a divorce, or a child who’s in trouble, or a crime. Having a new system to help run the operation is a need, not a want, he said. It’s an investment.

Conan Smith said he understood the need. But his concern is about how that system is funded, given the myriad countywide needs. He’d prefer to see a fee schedule developed to cover the capitalization and operations costs of this new system. Smith suggested perhaps a $30 increase to the current $150 regular filing fees, beyond any charges for e-filing.

Shelton replied that the court is constrained by the state in terms of how much it can charge for filing fees. The state legislature sets those fees – for example, it costs $100 to file a lawsuit. There’s more flexibility in electronic filing fees, which are subject to negotiation between the state and the court, he said.

Shelton noted that he has pledged to reduce the court’s operating budget, which will be made possible by this new system.

Smith described Shelton’s pledge as “rock solid.” However, Smith added, the court’s leadership will change soon. [Shelton can not run for re-election because he'll be over 70 years old when his current term ends. The state constitution requires that judicial candidates at the time of election must be younger than 70 years old.] “Then we’re in a situation with folks who didn’t cut that deal,” Smith said. The priorities of a new court leadership might shift, so Smith wanted a formal agreement that lays out how the project will be capitalized from court funds.

Shelton replied that he can’t bind future judges any more than Smith can bind future commissioners. However, he added that he could speak for the bench in that when they make a commitment, they keep it.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) voiced concern that additional software upgrades will be needed in other county departments and in the county-funded district courts. He cited expenses associated with moving the dispatch operations from downtown Ann Arbor to the county’s Zeeb Road facility. Dill reported that staff is working on a 10-year technology plan, which would address Sizemore’s concerns.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) agreed with Conan Smith about paying back the county’s capitalization costs. Rabhi reminded Dill that they’d talked about using the e-filing revenues to pay back the county’s capital reserves – not to offset maintenance costs. Shelton clarified that the e-filing revenues won’t be coming directly to the court. Rather, Tyler Technologies will be deducting those fees from its maintenance bill to the courts – that’s why it made sense for the e-filing revenues to offset maintenance, he said.

Rabhi said the point is to build in a way that the court can reimburse the capital reserves, to offset the county’s $1.3 million investment. The resolution needs to include language that spells out how that will happen.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) introduced some new issues. He said he’s heard anecdotally that the new system isn’t needed, but Dill and IT manager Andy Brush have spent a lot of time looking into it, and he’d go with their recommendation. He also noted that the courts had chosen to set themselves up in a different way from other county departments, getting their budget as a lump sum that’s governed by a memorandum of understanding. Given that, he has difficulty approving $1.3 million from the county’s capital reserves to a unit over which the board has essentially no financial oversight.

Dan Smith said he appreciated Shelton’s commitment, but the board has experienced recent situations where there were misunderstandings about promises that were made “that got us into a whole lot of hot water.” What really counts isn’t what’s talked about at the board table, Smith said, “but what we actually vote on. We need these types of things in writing.”

Conan Smith pointed out that from a budgetary standpoint, there’s no cash available to allocate to the capital reserves. The court will receive an annual maintenance bill, minus the amount of e-filing revenues. “I’d rather see a much more solid, structured revenue solution,” he said.

Shelton clarified that the maintenance bill is covered by the county’s IT fund, and isn’t part of the court’s lump sum budget. So any reductions in that maintenance bill will be money that the IT fund doesn’t have to expend. Responding to a query from Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6), Shelton noted that the annual maintenance cost includes future upgrades.

Shelton again reiterated that with the new system in place, the court will be able to meet its $200,000 budget reduction target. Over six years, that $200,000 annual reduction will cover the county’s $1.3 million capital investment in the system, he said.

Shelton noted that all county boards in the state chafe at the independence of courts as a separate unit of government. The courts are not a county department, he said. However, he felt the relationship between the board and the courts in Washtenaw County was better than any of Michigan’s other 82 counties. And although the board doesn’t have absolute control over the court’s budget, he said, the court gives a detailed report about how its money is spent, so that the administration knows exactly what’s happening with the court’s budget, and why.

Shelton also highlighted a “performance dashboard” that’s posted on the court’s website, so anyone can view the fluctuations in filings and dispensations.

Conan Smith replied that his concern is to find a predictable funding source that doesn’t compromise the county’s other investment priorities. He noted that he’s been talking with Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of community & economic development, about the possibility of “social impact” bonds, as an example.

Trial Court Software: Board Discussion – Amendment

Rabhi proposed an amendment to add a resolved clause to the resolution:

Be it further resolved that the offsets to the annual software maintenance and support costs created by the e-filing revenue will be used to reimburse the $1,299,463 of capital investment from the capital reserve fund.

After some additional discussion, Ping proposed an amendment to Rabhi’s amendment, adding this sentence: “Once the capital fund is reimbursed, additional offset funds will be allocated to the tech plan fund balance.”

Outcome on Ping’s amendment to Rabhi’s amendment: It was unanimously approved on a voice vote.

So the final version of the Rabhi’s amendment to the main resolution stated:

Be it further resolved that the offsets to the annual software maintenance and support costs created by the e-filing revenue will be used to reimburse the $1,299,463 of capital investment from the capital reserve fund. Once the capital fund is reimbursed, additional offset funds will be allocated to the tech plan fund balance.

Outcome on Rabhi’s amended amendment: Commissioners unanimously approved the amendment on a voice vote.

Trial Court Software: Board Discussion – Final Vote

Rabhi then called the question, a procedural move intended to force a vote. Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, noted that six votes are required in order to pass a motion to call the question.

Outcome on motion to call the question: It passed unanimously.

The board then voted on the main resolution, as amended, on funding of the Tyler software system.

Outcome: The resolution passed on an 8-1 vote, over dissent by Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Trial Court Software: Final Approval

Both resolutions – the funding resolution, and the general resolution for the Tyler system that was given initial approval on Aug. 7 – were on the board agenda for a final vote later in the meeting.

From left: Greg Dill, director of infrastructure management, and commissioner Dan Smith (R-District 2).

There was additional discussion, generally repeating themes and information that had been covered earlier in the meeting. Conan Smith highlighted the fact that the county would be taking on an additional expense for maintenance that will be absorbed by the IT fund. He wanted to know what cuts would be made to the IT budget in order to accommodate that additional maintenance expense.

Greg Dill replied that as his staff looked at the mix of all IT needs throughout the county, they felt confident they could absorb the trial court maintenance costs. The overall IT funding, even with additional maintenance costs, is sufficient to take care of the needs of the entire organization, he said. Kelly Belknap, the county’s finance director, explained that part of the IT budget includes revenues from what’s called the “1/8th mill” fund, which pays for infrastructure needs. Not all of the IT funding comes from the county’s general fund.

Outcome on final approval for the funding resolution: It passed on an 8-1 vote, over dissent by Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Outcome on final approval for the general Tyler software resolution: It passed on an 8-1 vote, over dissent by Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1). He did not indicate why he voted against the resolution. He had voted in favor of it on Aug. 7.

Trial Court Child Care Fund

In another item related to the trial court, the board was asked to give initial approval to 2013-2014 state child care fund expenditures of $9,425,785 for the trial court’s juvenile division and county dept. of human services. About half of that amount ($4,712,892) will be eligible for reimbursement from the state. [.pdf of budget summary]

According to a staff memo, the child care fund is a joint effort between state and county governments to fund programs that serve neglected, abused and delinquent youth. Part of this year’s funding will support a new 10-bed treatment program that will be housed in the county’s youth center facility, opening in November of 2013. From the staff memo:

The treatment program in its initial phase will exclusively provide treatment services to females aged 12-17 using an integrated therapeutic treatment model. The program will offer a short-term 90 day option as well as a 6 to 9 month long-term treatment option. The second phase of treatment programming will expand services to males aged 12-17.

The new program is expected to generate revenue from out-of-county treatment referrals.

The expenditures will result in a net increase of 5.46 jobs. A total of 10.46 full-time equivalent positions will be created, and 5 FTEs will be eliminated.

Trial Court Child Care Fund: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) clarified with county administrator Verna McDaniel that the county’s cost for this program is about $4.7 million. McDaniel stated that the funds are subject to the county’s memorandum of understanding with the trial court. Donald Shelton, chief judge of the trial court, clarified that only about a third of the funds are subject to the MOU. The MOU does not cover funding to the county’s department of human services or the youth center.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) wondered how the new treatment program fits into the county’s continuum of care. She also wanted to make sure that adolescents in Washtenaw County have access to the program.

Lisa Greco, director of children’s services for the county, explained that the new program would expand therapy treatment services that the county currently purchases from other providers. The program would involve the child and entire family, she said – it would be part of the entire continuum of care that the county provides.

Linda Edwards-Brown, the trial court’s juvenile and probate court administrator, noted that the program will initially serve only females, but the plan is to eventually expand to include males.

Brabec wondered how this program would be different from detention. Greco explained that there are parts of the juvenile facility that are secured, and other areas that are not secured. Activities in the new treatment program would take place in the unsecured areas, she said. There will also be a team approach to treatment and intervention.

Directing her comments to commissioner Dan Smith, Greco noted that all positions in the county’s youth center are 50% funded from the state child care fund. [Earlier in the meeting, Smith had objected to the resolutions on the agenda that added jobs to the county's payroll.]

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) pointed out that this program is built first and foremost for Washtenaw County residents. The county wants to create partnerships with neighboring counties and courts, but that’s not the program’s primary focus, he said. Secondarily, those services could be made available to residents outside the county.

Edwards-Brown noted that the trial court’s first response is to try to keep kids at home, and there are several in-home programs that are available. It’s the court’s last resort to place adolescents in a treatment facility.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) highlighted this project as an example of different county departments – including the infrastructure management group – working together.

Outcome: Commissioners gave initial approval to the child care fund expenditures, over dissent by Dan Smith (R-District 2). A final vote is expected on Sept. 18.

Micro Loan Program for Small Business

A countywide micro loan program for small businesses was on the Sept. 4 agenda for initial approval. The resolution would authorize the county’s office of community & economic development to contract with the Center for Empowerment and Economic Development to manage this program. CEED already handles a smaller micro loan program focused on the eastern side of the county. [.pdf of CEED micro loan proposal]

From left: Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

Micro loans would range from $500 to $50,000, for businesses that can’t get conventional financing. CEED has a $5 million borrowing capacity from the U.S. Small Business Administration, and expects to make $300,000 in micro loans in the next two years in Washtenaw County. The county would provide $45,000 out of revenues from levying the Act 88 millage. Of that amount, $35,000 would be used to seed a loan loss reserve fund and $10,000 would be designated for initial operating costs.

To be eligible for a micro loan, businesses must be based in Washtenaw County and have been turned down by two financial institutions for loans over $20,000. Other requirements include: (1) a business plan for businesses that are less than 3 years old; (2) a marketing plan for businesses that are 3 years or older; (3) two years of financial statements and tax returns; and (4) a personal financial statement.

The county is allowed to levy up to 0.5 mills under Public Act 88 of 1913, but currently levies a small percentage of that – 0.06 mills, which will bring in $696,000 this year. It’s used for programs run by the county’s office of community & economic development, and to fund the county’s MSU extension office. Act 88 does not require voter approval. It was originally authorized by the county in 2009 at a rate of 0.04 mills, and was increased to 0.043 mills in 2010 and 0.05 in 2011.

Last year, Conan Smith (D-District 9) of Ann Arbor proposed increasing the rate to 0.06 mills and after a heated debate, the board approved the increase on a 6-5 vote. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Board Debates, OKs Act 88 Tax Hike."] Increasing this tax was one of several revenue options that the county commissioners discussed at their Aug. 8, 2013 working session, as part of a broader strategy to address a projected $3.9 million budget deficit in 2014. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Board Eyes Slate of Revenue Options."]

The county has identified economic development as one of its main budget priorities.

Micro Loan Program for Small Business: Board Discussion

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) asked for examples of how this type of loan has been used successfully. Todd Van Appledorn with CEED responded that these loans are intended for entrepreneurs who have trouble getting loans through traditional sources, like banks or credit units. Types of businesses range from small manufacturers to retail shops or even consultants. Since CEED started its micro loan program in 1993, they’ve made over $5 million in loans, he said.

County administrator Verna McDaniel.

Generally, banks require two years of credit history before lending, Van Appledorn said, and new businesses don’t have that track record. Or some entrepreneurs have credit issues that don’t relate to their business – if they’ve had medical expenses, for example. The average micro loan made by CEED is $10,000.

Ping recalled that when she served on the Saline city council, a micro loan program was operated through the city’s economic development council. All the loans got paid back, she said, although not all the businesses were successful. A restaurant that’s been in downtown Saline for 20 years had received a micro loan. She thought it would be a great county program.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) asked how this program fits into the county’s overall economic development strategy. Tony VanDerworp with the county’s office of community & economic development explained that existing programs cover the high tech and life sciences sectors, as well as larger businesses. Now, OCED is working to find ways to support locally owned small businesses, he said. Efforts include this proposed micro loan program, changes to procurement policies, and support for the local food sector, among other things.

Responding to another question from Rabhi, Van Appledorn described CEED as an intermediate lender. The county’s program and seed funding will allow CEED to borrow through the U.S. Small Business Administration for the micro loans.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) wondered what entity will decide who gets the loans. That’s CEED’s job, Van Appledorn said. What’s the success rate? Sizemore asked. For a smaller eastern Washtenaw County micro loan program, from July 2009 through April 2013, 14 loans were approved totaling $270,000, VanDerworp reported. No loans have defaulted.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) praised CEED, noting that it has received national attention for its work. He hoped to see the program expand even further.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) said he supported the activities, but was concerned about using taxpayer dollars to fund businesses that can’t get conventional financing. People start businesses in other ways, he noted, such as using their home equity, personal credit, or loans from friends and family.

Smith also pointed out that the loan committee meets virtually, and that’s a concern. The public should have an opportunity to see how their money is being spent, and he wondered whether these meetings have to comply with the Michigan Open Meetings Act. Van Appledorn said that CEED follows the SBA’s guidelines for this program, and has never had a problem in the past 30 years handling it this way.

Outcome: Commissioners gave initial approval to the micro loan program, over dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2). A final vote is expected on Sept. 18.

Increase in Parks Stewardship Staff

A resolution to create three new full-time jobs for stewardship of Washtenaw County’s nature preserves was on the Sept. 4 agenda for initial approval.

The positions include: (1) a park laborer with a salary range of $31,507 to $41,766; (2) a park associate/principle planner with a salary range of $40,253 to $61,195; and (3) a stewardship coordinator, with a salary range of $43,373 to $56,586.

The additional jobs reflect a change approved by the county board nearly a year ago. At their Sept. 19, 2012 meeting, commissioners voted to amend the Natural Areas Ordinance No. 128, which established the county’s natural areas preservation program in 2000.

Bob Tetens, parks & recreation director, and Meghan Bonfiglio, superintendent of park planning.

The change removed a previous restriction that only 7% of millage funds could be used for management or stewardship. The goal was to use $600,000 per year for management and stewardship. Of that, roughly $240,000 would be used for ongoing stewardship activities, and $360,000 would remain to be invested in a dedicated reserve for long-term land stewardship.

According to a staff memo, the county’s parks system manages more than 4,500 acres of land in 13 parks and 22 preserves. In addition to the 556 acres of property already “actively” managed in the nature preserves, the staff also have active stewardship responsibilities for another 372 acres of prime natural areas within the county parks system. Overall, staff has identified 1,868 acres – or roughly 42% of the system’s current total acreage – as core conservation areas.

Funding for these new positions would be paid for entirely from the countywide natural areas millage, which was initially approved by voters in 2000 and renewed in 2010. The current 0.2409 mill tax raises roughly $3.5 million in annual revenues, and runs through 2021.

Increase in Parks Stewardship Staff: Board Discussion

Board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) described it as the right move to make, reflecting the county’s value of protecting its ecosystem. He noted that the city’s of Ann Arbor’s natural areas preservation program has a budget of about $700,000 to staff a system about half the size of the county’s natural areas, so “there’s always more that we can do.” It’s a step in the right direction, he said.

Dan Smith (R-District 2), who serves on the county parks & recreation commission, pointed out that during this meeting the board would be increasing the county’s overall headcount by nearly 10 FTEs, including the increase to the parks staff. It helps that some of the positions will be paid for out of a dedicated millage – as is the case with the parks staff – but it’s still an increase in positions, he said.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5), who also is a member of the parks & rec commission, praised Tetens and the parks staff. He noted that the intent is to slow down the amount of acquisitions and shift to a maintenance mode. However, he also shared concerns in general about increasing staff size.

Outcome: Commissioners gave initial approval to the staff increase. A final vote by the board is expected on Sept. 18.

Non-Discrimination Policy

At its Sept. 4 meeting, commissioners were asked to give initial approval to reaffirm and update the county’s affirmative action plan, as well as other nondiscrimination in employment-related policies. [.pdf of staff memo and policies]

The primary change adds a prohibition of discrimination on the basis of gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation.

The resolution’s three resolved clauses state:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners reaffirms its intent to prohibit discrimination in Washtenaw County against any person in recruitment, certification, appointment, retention, promotion, training and discipline on the basis of race, creed, color, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, national origin, age, handicap, veteran status, marital status, height, weight, religion and political belief.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners shall strive to promote a workforce that welcomes and honors all persons and that provides equal opportunity in employment.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners directs the Human Resources / Labor Relations Director to update the Affirmative Action Plan, as well as policies Prohibiting Discrimination in Employment, Sexual Harassment, and the County’s Statement of Equal Employment Opportunity to reflect the Boards commitment and reaffirmation described herein.

Non-Discrimination Policy: Public Commentary

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, community activist Jim Toy directed his first comments to commissioner Conan Smith (D-District 9).

From left: Jim Toy, Yousef Rabhi and Jason Morgan.

Toy recalled when he’d spoken to the Ann Arbor city council decades ago in front of then-mayor Al Wheeler, who was Smith’s grandfather. “I looked at the mayor and said, ‘Mayor Wheeler, I am totally intimidated because you look exactly like my grandfather,’” Toy said. He added: “I feel no such intimidation tonight.”

Toy thanked the board for its continued support of human and civil rights, and supported expansion of the county’s affirmative action plan and related policies. It has symbolic, political, psycho-social and personal weight, he said. The diverse components of human sexuality – sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation – “must receive stated protection,” Toy said. “Otherwise, we all are at risk of discrimination and harassment and assault, up to and including murder.” He ended his remarks by telling commissioners: “Namaste – walk in sunshine.”

Jason Morgan, a board member of the Jim Toy Community Center and director of government relations at Washtenaw Community College, also spoke in support of the changes. He appreciated the county’s support of LGBT protections and human rights protections. The county has been known for a long time as a leader in this regard. He noted that other supporters – including Katie Oppenheim of the Michigan Nurses Association – were there to urge commissioners to support the changes.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to give initial approval to the non-discrimination changes. A final vote is expected on Sept. 18.

Funding for Office of Community & Economic Development

In addition to the micro loan program reported in this article (see above), several other items were on the agenda related to funding for programs managed by the county’s office of community & economic development, totaling nearly $2 million:

• $88,263 from the federal dislocated worker training (DWT) national emergency grant [.pdf of staff memo for DWT grant]
• $16,277 in federal funding for the Michigan Works! Service Center Operations [.pdf of staff memo for Michigan Works funding]
• $50,000 in federal Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) employer-based training foundation funding [.pdf of staff memo for TAA funding]
• $287,860 in federal Dept. of Energy weatherization funding [.pdf of staff memo for weatherization funds]
• $274,792 in federal Emergency Solutions Grant funding. The total program budget is $412,188, which includes $137,396 of in-kind matching contributions. The program supports the Housing Access for Washtenaw County (HAWC) partnership between Salvation Army, the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County and the Interfaith Hospitality Network of Washtenaw County. [.pdf of ESG staff memo]
• $516,156 in federal Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) funds [.pdf of CSBG staff memo]
• $21,828 in discretionary funds from the federal Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) to provide free income-tax preparation for low-income residents [.pdf of discretionary CSBG staff memo]
• $703,214 in federal funding for a senior nutrition program, with a total budget of $873,372. Additional funding comes from a USDA reimbursement of $100,001 and in-kind contributions of $70,157. [.pdf of senior nutrition memo]

The board also was asked to give initial approval to a blanket resolution covering nearly 30 annual entitlement grants received by the county totaling an estimated $8.8 million, beginning in 2014. According to a staff memo, these grants are awarded on a reoccurring basis based on pre-existing state or federal allocation formulas. They require board approval as individual items, which “ends up consuming a significant portion of Board and staff time throughout a given year, as formula grants are on a variety of different fiscal years, and are awarded at several different points throughout the year. Furthermore, the piecemeal nature of the resolutions does not provide a holistic overview of the continuum of services provided to the community by OCED,” the memo states. [.pdf of staff memo regarding blanket grant approval]

There are several categories of grants that will continue to require a board vote, even if this blanket approval is passed. Those categories include:

• competitive grants;
• grants that are not based on pre-established federal or state funding formulas or entitlement formulas;
• new grants, or ones that have not been previously awarded to or administered by OCED;
• grants that would require a county general fund appropriation in excess of the amount approved by the county board in the budget;
• grants that would require a change in OCED position control;
• grants more than $100,000 or 10% more than the anticipated amount, whichever is greater.

Funding for OCED: Board Discussion

In response to a question from Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) about the weatherization grant, program coordinator Aaron Kraft clarified that the grant would fund 40 weatherization jobs in 2013.

Brabec also asked about changes to the senior nutrition program. Andrea Plevek of the OCED explained that because of sequestration and other funding constraints, OCED is working with partner organizations to streamline delivery of meals to senior citizens. Those changes include providing shared meal service at senior centers wherever possible, and reallocating financial resources to local programs based on both demand for service and need. Partners that provide both shared-meal service and home delivery are the Ann Arbor housing commission (Baker Commons); Chelsea Senior Center; Dexter Senior Center; and Northfield Senior Center.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7), who serves as the board’s representative to the Area Agency on Aging 1-B, asked if there was anything beyond sequestration happening at the federal level, that the county should be aware of. Plevek replied that the state agencies, which pass through federal funding to the county, have prioritized homebound meal delivery. She wasn’t aware of any other action at the federal level.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) asked for a report on the overall impact of federal sequestration. The county receives a lot of federal dollars, he noted, and he’s very concerned about the impact. It’s crucial to know as the administration develops its next budget, Peterson said, because the board will need to decide whether departments that are losing federal funding will get more support from the county to make up the shortfall.

County administrator Verna McDaniel said she’d work with department heads to pull that information together. LaBarre, who chairs the board’s working sessions, said he’d be willing to dedicate an upcoming session to that topic.

Outcome: All OCED items were given initial approval, with final votes expected at the board’s Sept. 18 meeting.

Hearing for Indigent Veterans Services Tax Hike

Commissioners were asked to set a public hearing for Sept. 18 to get input on a proposed increase to the Washtenaw County tax that supports services for indigent veterans and their families.

Michael Smith, director of the county’s department of veterans affairs, talks with commissioner Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

The current rate, approved by the board last year and levied in December 2012, is 0.0286 mills – or 1/35th of a mill. The new proposed rate of 1/30th of a mill would be levied in December 2013 to fund services in 2014. It’s expected to generate $463,160 in revenues.

The county is authorized to collect up to 1/10th of a mill without seeking voter approval. That’s because the state legislation that enables the county to levy this type of tax – the Veterans Relief Fund Act – predates the state’s Headlee Amendment. The county first began levying this millage in 2008. Services are administered through the county’s department of veterans affairs.

Increasing this tax was one of several revenue options that the county commissioners discussed at their Aug. 8, 2013 working session, as part of a broader strategy to address a nearly $4 million projected budget deficit in 2014. See Chronicle coverage: “County Board Eyes Slate of Revenue Options.”

There was no discussion on this item. In addition to the public hearing, the board is expected to vote on the tax hike on Sept. 18.

Outcome: Commissioners set the Sept. 18 public hearing on an increase in the millage to pay for indigent veterans services.

CSTS Budget

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to the 2013-14 budget for the community support and treatment service (CSTS) department, from Oct. 1, 2013 through Sept. 30, 2014. The $34.96 million budget includes $29.598 million in revenue from the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO), which contracts with CSTS to provide services for people who are mentally ill and developmentally disabled. Other revenue comes from the Haarer bequest ($165,192), a contract with the county sheriff’s office ($246,846), smaller contracts with other entities, and fee-for-service billing. [.pdf of CSTS budget]

The budget calls for putting six full-time positions and two part-time jobs on “hold vacant” status. Those positions are currently unfilled.

The resolution also authorized county administrator Verna McDaniel to approve a service agreement with the WCHO, which is a separate nonprofit that’s a partnership between the county and the University of Michigan Health System.

CSTS Budget: Board Discussion

Discussion was brief. Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) asked for an explanation about the changes that CSTS is undergoing.

Trish Cortes, WCHO director, reported that over the past fiscal year, the delivery of all direct services has been shifted from WCHO to CSTS. Now, CSTS provides all direct services, under contract with the WCHO. [Further explanation of these changes, and additional discussion among commissioners, took place at the board's April 3, 2013 meeting.]

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to the CSTS budget. A final vote is expected on Sept. 18.

Public Health Budget

The Sept. 4 agenda included a resolution approving the public health department’s $10.796 million budget for 2013-14, from Oct. 1, 2013 through Sept. 30, 2014. The budget includes $3.553 million in an appropriation from the county’s general fund, and $243,226 from the department’s fund balance. [.pdf of staff memo regarding public health budget]

As part of the budget, the public health department is proposing a net increase of 1.5 full-time equivalent positions. That results from eliminating 4.5 FTEs and creating 6 new positions. In addition, 5 positions will be put on “hold vacant” status, effective Oct. 1.

The resolution also included a proposed fee schedule for vaccines and clinic visits. [.pdf of proposed fee schedule] The minimum fee is proposed to be raised from $30 to $40.

Public Health Budget: Board Discussion

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) noted that public health director Dick Fleece is retiring, and that provides a good time to look at possibly restructuring the department. He also expressed concern over the listing of salary ranges for new positions, rather than giving each position a set salary.

From left: Lefiest Galimore and Dick Fleece, the county’s public health director.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) said he agreed with Sizemore. If changes are going to be made, this is the chance to do it with minimal impact.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) pointed out that the staff memo refers to the impact of federal sequestration on the budget, and she wondered when more information would be available on that.

Fleece responded, saying the department had received more information since the staff memo for this resolution was written. The areas that he’d been concerned about were emergency preparedness, HIV/AIDS services, and the Women Infants and Children (WIC) program. The department has subsequently learned that the state of Michigan will absorb the cuts and maintain funding at the current levels, he said.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) thought commissioners should at some point talk about recreating the public health board. Right now, the county board plays that role, he noted, but they lack specific expertise in that area “and we frankly don’t do our due diligence on things that [staff] could probably use a professional board for in public health.” There’s a wide array of resources in this community, he noted, including hospitals and the University of Michigan School of Public Health.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) and Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) both agreed. Fleece said he’d welcome a public health board, though he noted the department does have an advisory committee that also serves as the health code board of appeals.

Fleece also pointed out that when he was appointed health director, he retained his position as environmental health coordinator, which saved the county the cost of filling that position. He thanked his management team, many of whom attended the meeting, as well as the county’s medical examiner, Jeff Jentzen, who Fleece said attended to show support.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the public health budget and fee schedule.

2013 Budget Adjustments

A budget adjustment resulting in a $654,670 increase in 2013 general fund revenues and expenses, bringing the total general fund budget to 103,218,903, was on the Sept. 4 agenda for final approval. [.pdf of 2013 budget adjustment chart]

An initial vote had been taken on Aug. 7, 2013, following significant debate and some failed amendments proposed by Conan Smith (D-District 9). His amendments would have restored over $1 million in funding to programs and departments that had been cut in previous budget cycles. During the Aug. 7 meeting, other commissioners expressed general support for his sentiments, but cautioned against acting quickly and not giving sufficient strategic thought to these allocations, which they had seen for the first time that night.

Conan Smith, Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Dan Smith (R-District 2) had dissented on the vote giving initial approval to the budget adjustments. Board approval is required for budget changes greater than $100,000 or a variance of more than 10%, whichever is less.

The county’s finance staff cited several factors related to the adjustments, including the fact that property tax revenues are $2.3 million higher than anticipated when the budget was approved in December 2012. The county is also receiving $205,344 more in state funding than was originally budgeted, from state liquor tax revenues.

On the expense side, $551,998 will be used to help pay for the trial court’s new records management software system. Those funds come from a refund to the court by the state of Michigan. There will also be an increase of $102,672 in expenses due to a higher substance abuse allocation mandated by Public Act 2 of 1986, and related to the higher liquor tax revenues that the county received. Those funds will go to the county’s designated substance abuse coordinating agency.

The 2013 general fund budget also is not expected to need a previously planned use of $2.8 million from the fund balance.

There was no discussion on this item at the Sept. 4 meeting.

Outcome: Commissioners gave final approval to 2013 general fund budget adjustments, over dissent from Conan Smith (D-District 9).

Naming of Head Start Building

The Sept. 4 agenda included an item to support naming the county’s Head Start building at 1661 LeForge in Ypsilanti in honor of the late Charles Beatty Sr. [.pdf of resolution honoring Charles Beatty Sr.]

Beatty was recognized for his work in education – he was the first African American school principal in Michigan. He served as principal of Ypsilanti’s Harriet Street School – which was renamed Perry School – until 1967, and was instrumental in setting up the Perry Preschool Program and the HighScope Foundation’s Perry Preschool Study. The study was influential in validating the importance of early childhood programs like Head Start.

From left: Former Washtenaw Head Start director Patricia Horne McGee and Maude Forbes, a retired principal of Fletcher and Adams elementary schools in Ypsilanti.

Board chair Yousef Rabhi, who read the resolution aloud, called it a “great day for Washtenaw County.”

By way of background, at its Aug. 7, 2013 meeting, the board approved a 10-year lease of the county-owned Head Start building to the Washtenaw Intermediate School District. [.pdf of lease agreement] The WISD is taking over management of the Head Start program from the county, which has administered it for over four decades. After considerable debate, the board made the decision in late 2011 to relinquish the Head Start program.

The county took out bonds to pay for the construction of the $2.29 million Head Start facility in 2002. Ten years remain on the bond repayment for a total of $1.66 million.

WISD will begin making payments in 2014. Annual payments vary, beginning with $166,862 by Oct. 1, 2014. [.pdf of rent payment schedule] After the final payment, the county would deed the Head Start building and surrounding 11-acre property to the WISD. During the term of the lease, WISD will pay for utilities and basic maintenance, but the county will be liable for structural issues with the building, including roof repairs, broken windows, and other repairs – unless the repairs are caused by WISD action.

WISD superintendent Scott Menzel attended the Sept. 4 meeting, but did not address the board.

Naming of Head Start Building: Public Commentary

Several family members and friends were on hand, and the resolution was presented to Charles Beatty Jr., who told commissioners that this father – also known as “Chief” – would be very proud that the Head Start building was being named after him, because the program had been very near and dear to his heart.

Michael Kinloch, an officer of Kappa Alpha Psi, spoke on behalf of that organization, noting that Charles Beatty Sr. had been a member of the fraternity and had helped on many community service projects. He thanked commissioners for honoring Beatty.

Maude Forbes said she was probably the oldest person in the room to have known Charles Beatty. She’d first met him as a third-grade student at Harriet Street School, where he was principal. In 1953 she graduated from Ypsilanti High School, thanks to his help. In 1957 she was looking for her first teaching job, and he asked her: “Where else would you teach, except with me?” She thanked the commissioners, HighScope, and Pat Horne-McGee, who had worked to make sure that Beatty was recognized. Forbes joked that if Beatty could get someone like commissioner Ronnie Peterson through school, “and have him end up being a recognized citizen and not end up in court, then you know [Beatty had] a lot of talent.”

Larry Schweinhart, president of the HighScope Educational Research Foundation in Ypsilanti, told commissioners that none of the organization’s achievements would have been possible without the generous partnership of Charles Beatty Sr. It’s fitting to name the Head Start building after him, because he’s one of the pioneers who made Head Start possible, Schweinhart said.

Naming of Head Start Building: Commissioner Response

Many commissioners praised Beatty and his lifetime achievements, and thanked his family and friends for attending. Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) spoke at length about his personal experiences with Charles Beatty Sr., who had been principal at Perry Elementary when Peterson attended there. Peterson described Beatty as a great man who didn’t get the recognition he deserved when he was alive. He thanked Beatty’s family and Pat Horne-McGee for working to make this happen.

Alicia Ping (R-District 3) noted that she attended Perry Elementary for kindergarten, not long after Beatty retired. She’d like to think that he was instrumental in creating the atmosphere in that building, even after he had gone.

Dawn Farm 40th Anniversary

The county board passed a resolution honoring the nonprofit Dawn Farm, which is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year. [.pdf of Dawn Farm resolution] The Ann Arbor city council had passed a similar resolution at its Sept. 3, 2013 meeting.

Dawn Farm president Jim Balmer and Janis Bobrin, who serves on the nonprofit’s board.

Dawn Farm offers both residential and out-patient services supporting recovery for alcoholics and drug addicts. The organization was founded in 1973 by Gary Archie and Jack Scholtus in a rented old farmhouse on Stony Creek Road in Ypsilanti. It has grown to include facilities in downtown Ann Arbor.

Dawn Farm’s president, Jim Balmer was on hand to accept the resolution, along with board members Janis Bobrin and Maggie Ladd. Bobrin is the former county water resources commissioner. Ladd is executive director of the South University Area Association. Also attending the Sept. 4 meeting was Charles Coleman, the nonprofit’s Chapin Street project coordinator.

Balmer told commissioners that he didn’t think this kind of program could have survived anyplace other than Washtenaw County. The community’s generosity accounts for the survival of Dawn Farm, he said.

Balmer invited commissioners to the Sept. 8 40th annual jamboree and fundraiser, noting that both founders will be attending. “There will be cake!”

Several commissioners praised Balmer and Dawn Farm for their work.

Honoring Bill McFarlane

Commissioners passed a resolution in honor of Bill McFarlane, the long-time Superior Township supervisor who recently announced his resignation due to health issues. [.pdf of resolution honoring McFarlane]

In introducing the resolution, board chair Yousef Rabhi described McFarlane as a friend to all the commissioners. McFarlane was unable to attend the Sept. 4 meeting, but Rabhi said it would be presented to him at his going-away celebration later this month.

Several commissioners praised McFarlane for his service over the decades, both in Superior Township and in countywide efforts like the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) and the county’s police services committee.

Township Sewer Contract Amendment

The amendment of a contract between Washtenaw County, Lyndon Township and Sylvan Township was on the agenda for final approval. [.pdf of original contract]

In February 2013, county commissioners voted to refinance debt for a sewer system in Lyndon and Sylvan townships, on the county’s west side. The resolution authorized the sale of refunding bonds that would be used to pay the remaining principal on existing bonds that were sold in 2004. That year, the county sold $5.115 million in bonds to help the townships pay for the sewer. Of that amount, $2.225 million remained to be repaid, prior to the refunding. The project built sewers at Cavanaugh, Sugar Loaf, Cassidy, Crooked, and Cedar Lakes. It’s funded through special assessments on property around those lakes and payments by the Sugar Loaf Lake State Park and Cassidy Lake State Corrections Facility.

In March 2013, the county received bids for the refunding, with the lowest bid from Hastings City Bank at an interest rate of 1.749838%. As a result of this refunding, only $695,000 in debt remains on this bond issue. Lyndon Township was able to cash reserves and redeemed all of their outstanding debt for this project.

The contract amendments given initial approval by county commissioners on Aug. 7 remove Lyndon Township from any responsibility for debt retirement and reduce the amount of debt for Sylvan Township. All other provisions of the contract remain in place until the bonds are paid off in 2022. Both township boards have previously approved these changes, according to a staff memo.

This sewer system is separate from a controversial water and wastewater treatment plant project in Sylvan Township. For more background on that project, see Chronicle coverage: “County Board OKs Sylvan Twp. Contract.”

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners gave final approval to the contract amendment.

Communications & Commentary

During the evening there were multiple opportunities for communications from the administration and commissioners, as well as public commentary. In addition to issues reported earlier in this article, here are some other highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Budget Update

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), who’s leading the budget process for the board, gave an update on activities related to developing the 2014-2017 general fund budget. All departments have been given letters stating the targets for budget reductions. The administration will be bringing forward a draft budget proposal to the Oct. 2 board meeting.

Budget task force meetings on priority areas are continuing. Brabec plans to bring the outcomes of those meetings to the board at a Sept. 19 working session.

The board will receive a third-quarter 2013 budget update from county administrator Verna McDaniel in November.

Communications & Commentary: Repeal “Stand Your Ground” Law

Three people spoke during public commentary urging the board to pass a resolution asking for the repeal of Michigan’s “stand your ground” law. Lefiest Galimore told commissioners that he had addressed the Aug. 8, 2013 meeting of the Ann Arbor city council with the same message. He called it a “vigilante law.” The city councils of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti have both approved this kind of resolution, he noted. Galimore hoped the county board would do the same, to put pressure on Michigan legislators.

Blaine Coleman, wearing a sign that stated “Black Life Matters,” expressed some surprise that it was so easy to speak to commissioners. [Unlike the Ann Arbor city council, which requires people to sign up for the public commentary at the start of its meetings, there is no sign-up required at the county board session.] He said the law has become a “hunting license” against black men and black boys. “I think it’s perceived that way and I think it’s used that way.” The deeper problem for the past 400 years is that black life is not taken seriously or valued, he said. Rather than spending trillions of dollars on overseas wars, the U.S. government should invest in rebuilding inner cities like Detroit.

Lucia Heinold also urged commissioners to pass a resolution asking Michigan legislators to repeal this state’s version of the “stand your ground” law. She’s talked with a lot of black parents about the fears they have for their children. She hoped commissioners would join the movement to repeal the law. Heinold said she’s worked with the prisoner re-entry program and has come to admire sheriff Jerry Clayton and his work with the neighborhoods.

Later in the meeting, board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) indicated that he would be bringing forward such a resolution at the board’s Sept. 18 meeting. He said he felt that more discussion needed to happen, which he hoped would happen on the 18th.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) spoke in support of a resolution, but hoped that it would go further than simply calling on legislators to repeal the law – because that won’t likely happen, given the current composition of the legislature.

Communications & Commentary: Human Services

Ellen Schulmeister, executive director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, thanked commissioners for their support for human services, for coordinated funding, and specifically for the Delonis Center, a homeless shelter in downtown Ann Arbor that’s operated by the shelter association. She read a short statement about a man named Peter who used the services of the center and was able to become independent and live on his own again. Last winter, the shelter moved 31 people from its warming center or rotating shelter into housing. Another 51 people were moved into the residential program, she said, where nearly half of them were then moved into housing.

Communications & Commentary: Pall-Gelman 1,4 Dioxane Plume

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) mentioned the ongoing cleanup of the 1,4 dioxane plume. The environmental contamination is related to past activities of the former Gelman Sciences manufacturing operations in Scio Township. Gelman was later bought by Pall Corp. Martinez-Kratz noted that he serves on the Coalition for Action on Remediation of Dioxane (CARD), which is calling for better cleanup standards.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) reported that he’s been communicating with Ann Arbor city councilmember Sabra Briere and Chuck Warpehoski, who co-sponsored a city council resolution on Sept. 3 related to this issue. Rabhi would like to bring a similar resolution to the county board at its Sept. 18 meeting.

Communications & Commentary: Miss America

Alicia Ping (R-District 3), whose district includes the city of Saline, reported that the Miss America pageant will be held on Sept. 15 in Atlantic City. Miss Michigan, Haley Williams, is from Saline, Ping noted, and she urged commissioners and the public to support Williams. The competition will be broadcast on ABC affiliates starting at 9 p.m.

Communications & Commentary: Thomas Partridge

Thomas Partridge called on commissioners to seek out additional resources, including private foundation support and an override of the Headlee Amendment, to provide services to county residents.

Present: Felicia Brabec, Andy LaBarre, Kent Martinez-Kratz, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Dan Smith.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Sept. 18, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Chart 1: City of Ann Arbor two-year outlook for the general fund. The black bar represents recurring revenue. The stacked bars represent expenses. From the bottom up, those expenses are: existing recurring expenses (light red), requests for new recurring expenses (dark red), one-time requests (light blue), and capital improvement plan needs (dark blue). There also could be additional expenses needed to meet the city council’s priority goals.

The most recent of those work sessions took place on March 11, 2013. The agenda focused on the city council’s top priorities, as identified at its planning retreat late last year: (1) city budget and fiscal discipline; (2) public safety; and (3) infrastructure. Two additional areas were drawn from a raft of other possible issues as those to which the council wanted to devote time and energy over the next two years: (4) economic development; and (5) affordable housing. The retreat had resulted in a consensus on “problem” and “success” statements in these areas – answering the questions: (1) What is the problem we are solving? and (2) What does success look like?

The priority-focused March 11 work session followed one held on Feb. 25, which mapped out the financial picture for the next two years fund-by-fund – not just the general fund, but also the various utility funds (water, sanitary sewer, stormwater, and streets) and internal service funds (fleet, and IT). But on March 11, the council’s focus was primarily on the general fund – as deliberations centered on the first two priority items: fiscal discipline and public safety.

The Feb. 25 session had provided the council with a sketch of the basic general fund picture for the next two years, which is better than it has been for the last several years. Based on current levels for all services, recurring revenues for the two years are projected to exceed recurring expenses by a total of $1.44 million in a general fund budget of about $82 million each year.

That doesn’t factor in requests from various departments that would result in additional recurring expenses, totaling $1.17 million for the two years – which would leave a surplus of just $265,000. When further requests from departments are considered that would result in one-time expenses, that two-year surplus would flip to a deficit of about $252,00. And if all as-yet-unfunded capital improvement expenses are added in for the two years, the city would be looking at a two-year general fund deficit of $4.41 million.

The general fund’s uncommitted balance could cover that deficit – but it would leave the uncommitted balance at $9.69 million at the end of FY 2015, or 11.5% of operating expenses. Under city policy, the uncommitted general fund balance should be between 8% and 12%. However, Tom Crawford, the city’s chief financial officer, has recommended that the city strive for 15-20%.

None of those numbers factor in any additional resources that could be required to achieve success measured in terms of the city council’s priority goals.

At the March 11 session, discussion by councilmembers of the first two priority items – fiscal discipline and public safety – revealed some unsurprising philosophical differences in approach. The majority of councilmembers seemed to accept city administrator Steve Powers’ inclination to take FY 2014 as a “breather” year, not asking departments to meet reduction targets this year, after several years of cuts. But Jane Lumm (Ward 2) – who previously served as a Republican on the council in the mid 1990s, and was elected as an independent in 2011 – expressed disappointed with this approach. She wants reduction targets every year.

And Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), who was elected in November 2012, challenged the idea that it’s only new councilmembers who need to learn during the budget process. She pointed out that city staff members also have a learning curve – as they shift the organization’s priorities to the new council’s priorities.

For public safety, a consensus seemed to emerge that the council’s planning retreat success statements about policing might need further refinement – in light of the current department’s configuration. Police chief John Seto characterized that configuration as set up to be reactive, not proactive. Current staffing levels don’t allow for a proactive configuration, he indicated.

But the council did not appear to have a complete consensus about the importance of that proactive capability – unless that capability could be linked to success in making the community be safe and feel safe. Measuring perceptions of safety through the National Citizens Survey – for the first time since 2008 – was an idea that seemed to have some traction on the council. Some sentiment was expressed that the number of police officers should be increased – whether or not that increase could be tied to better safety as defined in adopted city council goals.

For the fire protection side of public safety, councilmembers effectively made a decision – without voting – to give clear direction to fire chief Chuck Hubbard that they didn’t want to see his three-station plan implemented. He had first presented the plan about a year ago. The proposal would close three stations but re-open one, for a net reduction from five to three stations.

Some dissent was offered, but mayor John Hieftje indicated that in his view the three-station plan was dead. Still, councilmembers seemed unenthusiastic about an alternative – which would entail hiring an additional 23 firefighters to staff existing stations. They seemed more inclined toward incremental improvements in fire safety. Those improvements might be gained through community education. Another possibility is deployment of some light rescue vehicles, which would require a crew of just two, instead of water-carrying trucks that need a crew of three.

This report focuses exclusively on the top council priorities of budget discipline and public safety. Also discussed at the working session, but not included in this report, were draft work plans for the other three priority areas: infrastructure, economic development and affordable housing.

The council may schedule an additional work session on March 25 to give city administrator Steve Powers more direction as he shapes the final budget that he’ll submit to the council in April.

Work Session Overview

The agenda for the council’s working session included draft work plans built around the council’s priorities and success statements – which they had adopted from their late 2012 planning retreat. [.pdf of 2014 draft priority area work plans]

Work Session Overview: General Fund

But before being briefed on the draft work plans for the five priority areas, city administrator Steve Powers invited chief financial officer Tom Crawford to review the basic financial picture for the city’s general fund. The council had been briefed on this at their previous work session held on Feb. 25.

Crawford highlighted the contrast between recurring requests and nonrecurring requests. He also pointed out that there was a line for capital improvement plan (CIP) projects that have no other funding identified except for the general fund. Listed as “TBD” in the chart presented to the council were additional resources for the council’s priorities identified at their planning retreat, as well as other possible subsidies from the general fund that might be required for other funds.

Crawford told the council he would be listening that evening to hear their feedback. Specifically, he’d be listening for how the council wanted to measure success for each of their priority areas. Based on the council’s reaction to the draft work plans, Crawford said, he’d be listening to see if the staff had heard accurately what the council had expressed about how it wanted to measure success.

Crawford presented the council with a slide they’d seen at their previous work session [figures are in thousands]:

                      FY 2014     FY 2015
Recurring
Recurring Revenue   $(82,274)   $(83,527)
Recurring Expenses    80,797      83,565
Net Recurring         (1,477)         38
Recurring Requests       698         476
Net Recur Oprtns        (779)        514

Non-Recurring
One-time Rqsts           431          86
Gen Fund CIP Rqsts     1,298	   2,856
Council Priorities       tbd         tbd
Gen Fund Subs Other      tbd         tbd
Total Non-Recur Rqsts  1,729       2,942

(Surplus)/Deficit        950       3,455

Uncommitted Fnd Blnc  13,144       9,689
Fnd Blnc as Percent    16.1%       11.5%

-

Crawford reminded the council that if all current departmental requests were granted, and all of the capital needs were funded, that would result in the use of general fund balance of around $950,000 in fiscal year 2014 and roughly $3.5 million in fiscal year 2015. The result would be to reduce the uncommitted general fund balance to about 11.5% of total expenses. The current fund balance, Crawford indicated, reflects about 18% of operations. He reminded the council that the range that he recommended for the uncommitted fund balance for the general fund was between 15% and 20%.

Work Session Overview: Draft Work Plans

To give councilmembers an idea of what they’d be presented that evening, city administrator Steve Powers described the draft work plans as centering around the council’s priority areas – which the council had identified at the December 2012 planning retreat. Powers indicated that the service area administrators would be presenting the draft plans and highlighting those places where the staff feel like they need additional feedback from the council.

Powers also stressed that some of the action items might be accomplished without additional funding and that the service area administrators would highlight those items. Some of the action items might also be undertaken in partnership with other entities, he said, not necessarily under the leadership of the city. Powers reiterated Crawford’s point that staff would be looking for feedback from the council on how to measure success as set forth by the council.

The desired outcome for the staff that evening, Powers said, was a consensus about the success statements and guidance for the 2104 and 2015 budgets, and about how the council would like to proceed in developing its priorities. The staff wanted guidance on topics that the council would like to see brought before the body within the next two years. The idea was to transform the draft work plans into something that was really actionable during the two-year timeframe, Powers said. He stressed the fact that the work plans are currently drafts on which the staff is looking for feedback at the work session or later.

Later in the presentation, Powers also reminded councilmembers that the problem statements and the success statements in the draft work plans were developed and adopted by the city council. The other parts of the work plan were initiated by the city staff.

Budget Discipline

Crawford reviewed the success statements on budget and fiscal discipline from the council’s planning retreat.

Problem: Provide efficient, quality service delivery in the face of the projected gap between revenue and
expenses.
Success: Prioritizing expenditures while matching them with revenues over the long-term.

Budget Discipline: Draft Work Plan Summary

The city staff were hearing that the council was basically satisfied with the kind of discipline that the city currently has, Crawford indicated. In thinking about how to measure success, he told the council, the staff felt that they could continue to look at the question: Do we have a balanced budget?

Whether a budget is balanced is measured in two ways. First, is the budget balanced on a recurring basis over the two-year plan? And second, on a non-recurring basis – unless you’ve been saving for a particular investment – does the two-year plan balance out by not showing a net use of fund balance? The city staff’s interpretation so far, Crawford said, is that this kind of metric would resonate with the city council. He wanted to hear some feedback if that kind of metric doesn’t meet the council’s expectations.

Staff is trying to listen to the council’s direction about how to achieve budget discipline, Crawford indicated, so staff had come up with four basic strategies, with four corresponding action items.

The four strategies that were in the draft work plan, with comments from Crawford made at the work session, are:

1. Pursue efficiencies where/when possible. This reflects the fact that there are always opportunities for improvement and the staff always need to be looking at ways to become more efficient, Crawford said.
2. Periodically consider how services are delivered (in-house, privatized, franchised, etc.). Crawford said the staff needs to step back periodically and consider whether the city should be providing a service using in-house resources, whether it should be a franchise arrangement, or privatized. Historically, Crawford explained, the city had applied that kind of scrutiny during the “off year” of the budget cycle – when there is a chance to “chew on” some of the bigger questions. [The city has a two-year budget planning process, but adopts budgets one year at a time. This is the first year in the two-year budget cycle. The second year is considered to be the "off year."]
3. Develop a citywide strategic plan to help inform the prioritization of services. The idea here, Crawford said, is that the city provides a wide range of services to the community, and they are not necessarily independent. In fact, many of the services are interrelated, he noted. So the strategic framework would have a longer lasting priority direction.
4. Reconfirm budget policies/practices. Crawford explained this strategy in terms of action items related to it. Those included a laundry list of general policies and practices that are currently in place. Those policies have implications for how the staff develops the budget each year.

In addition to the strategies and action items, Crawford continued, the staff has listed out some challenges associated with the council’s goals. With respect to budget discipline, he said, the staff recognizes that the city council has elections every year, with half of the council elected every year. Given the size of the organization and complexity of operations, it takes time to get up to speed on all the issues. Another challenge is that a complete re-prioritization takes a lot of resources – and it might not be something you do every year or every two years, but only periodically.

To illustrate the inter-relatedness of the various services and the complexity of the organization, Crawford gave the example of crime reduction. A lot of people might think that’s a police function, Crawford said, but the attorney’s office also has a role in that. And for crime related to nuisance properties, for example, the planning and development services area has a role to play. So there’s a lot of relatedness between the city’s various operations, he said.

Another challenge is the staffing resources to support a number of simultaneous efforts.

Crawford returned to the initial sentiment he’d expressed – a sense that the council felt that the city’s fiscal discipline was in pretty good shape, but that it could perhaps be tweaked. That’s the context in which the work plan for budget discipline was offered, he said. If that’s not the case, then the staff needed to hear about that.

Budget Discipline: Why No Reductions?

City council reaction was led off by Jane Lumm (Ward 2). She told Crawford she appreciated the fact that some “meat had been put to the bones” of the strategic framework. She told Crawford that she felt he and his staff did pursue efficiencies wherever possible. But picking up on the statement that there is always room and opportunity for improvement, she said, the city has identified no cost reductions targets for the next two years. She understood that there had been budget reductions over the last few years, but she didn’t feel that meant there were no further efficiencies that could be achieved.

Lumm felt that continuous improvement is a reasonable expectation. Even in a world of flat budgets, she continued, we should be striving to optimize resource allocation, to meet priorities. Savings generated in one area could be reinvested in another, she said. She encouraged staff to strive to identify cost-saving targets. “That was a surprise to me that we didn’t do that.” The city has been through some tough times, Lumm said, but she still felt that cost reductions are something that the staff should always strive for.

Crawford responded by indicating that earlier in the day, in response to a question that Lumm had raised at the previous working session, staff had developed some responses that had been emailed to the council. Summarizing the sense of the email, he said staff’s view is that the organization “needs a breather” right now. The staff does believe that there is always opportunity for improvement – but the larger opportunities for that improvement will require some planning, and may require that a lot of different elements be brought together, he said. Significant efficiencies are likely to be more surgical in the future, Crawford felt. That contrasted with the way things were done in the past – where the city collectively had been “ratcheting down.”

Lumm characterized the issue as perhaps a philosophical difference, and reiterated her view that there were always opportunities for improvement and finding savings so that the city can allocate resources in a way that’s consistent with its priorities.

Budget Discipline: Against Wal-Mart-ization

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he heard the staff saying that efficiencies and improvements are always part of the analysis – and in the past it’s been driven by a need for cost savings. But now, Taylor said, he didn’t necessarily want to have a desire for cost savings drive the efficiencies. If we can achieve cost savings and maintain or improve service, then absolutely we should do that, he said. But in the environment he envisioned in the future, he felt the goal is not merely to provide service, but provide excellent service. He compared cutting merely to achieve cost savings to “Wal-Mart-ization” – cutting and cutting and cutting and making the products thinner. Ann Arbor’s goal, he felt, should be to do the best we can to provide services to the residents with the taxes and the few dollars that we have. We should make sure that we’re doing it right, he said, and in that he concurred with Lumm. But he wanted the organization to equally emphasize excellence in service.

Lumm reiterated her point that the goal should be to find savings in some areas so that the money can be spent in other areas that are a higher priority. For example, she felt very strongly that the city needs to look at the pension plan – and to transition from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan, or some hybrid form. That would not be for existing employees, she said, but rather for future employees. That’s just one example, she said, where the organization could find savings to invest in other areas.

Budget Discipline: For a Breather

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) summarized the last 10 years as a period during which the city had been downsizing. As some of the areas have been totally reorganized, she characterized the result as “a lot of chaos.” However, in the last couple of years, she continued, things had settled down a little bit. With the new city administrator and service unit managers, she felt those people are now looking at how the organization is structured and asking where additional efficiencies can be realized. But she felt that the organization did need “a moment to take a breath” – otherwise there could be continual chaos in the organization, and that just leads to a lot of anxiety.

Ann Arbor: Total number of city employees by year.

Higgins felt that the staff came to the council every year with proposals for savings and how the savings could be used in other areas. She felt the staff are already doing a pretty good job at that. Higgins felt it was a great dialogue to have about how the identified savings can be used on the council’s identified priorities. So Higgins asked Lumm how Lumm envisioned that dialogue taking place. “Where in the process do you see that taking place?” Higgins asked.

Budget Discipline: Council Input Process (Dog Food)

Lumm ventured that everyone could put forward their budget amendments. Last year, the budget amendments that she had brought forward had identified savings in certain areas to be spent in other areas, she said. “A lot of people didn’t like the dog food, so it didn’t really go anywhere,” she laughed. Identifying savings in one area and spending it in another – that was how she envisioned the next step unfolding. But she ventured it was difficult to say, because the council did not yet know what budget the city administrator would propose.

Steve Powers weighed in by suggesting that some of that feedback and discussion could be conducted before the point of preparing budget amendments. He ventured that the draft work plans being presented that evening could provide a framework for discussion.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said that for her part, the city had gone through 10 or 11 years of cutting. She felt the city is now a very lean organization. If the staff feels that the council needs to give them a break to see how things are going, and let things settle down a bit, then now is the time to do that, she felt. A lot of the stress, she ventured, comes not just from the chaos, but from doing more with less over and over again. So she wanted to let up a little bit if the organization feels it can do that. Her question for Lumm was: When is there a point when you’re not looking to cut anything?

Lumm responded to Teall by saying that she felt it was always possible to look for continuous improvement and savings. There are lots of ways to do that, Lumm said, and there are lots of things that the savings can be spent on – like the priorities identified by the council. A lot of it is simply shifting money from one bucket to another, she said. Infrastructure is a council priority, she observed, but she felt that she didn’t want to see any more money spent on the city hall building. She wanted more potholes to be filled instead. It’s those kinds of shifts, she suggested, where the city is reducing allocation in one area and increasing it elsewhere.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) told Crawford that she did not want to quibble with what he had said. But she picked up on his remark that when there are changes in the city council membership, there can be a steep learning curve to digest the budget complexity. She flipped that perspective by suggesting to Crawford that the city staff need to digest the fact that new priorities sometimes come with new councilmembers.

She felt that the priorities identified in the council’s planning retreat did not reflect a “Wal-Mart-ization,” but rather shifted priorities. She did not feel that the council had stressed cutting and achieving more efficiency, but rather the retreat had focused on what the council wanted to spend money on. She knew a lot of people, for example, who wanted to see the roads fixed.

Teall interjected that road repair was, in fact, one of the council’s priorities. Mayor John Hieftje wanted to move the discussion along, but before doing that, he responded to Lumm’s remark about shifting funds from one bucket to another. He stressed that this is possible just as long as the “buckets” are located inside the general fund. But outside the general fund, the various buckets, in many cases, have legal restrictions on them. He wanted to make sure that no one in the public misunderstood the city’s intentions.

Police Services

Ann Arbor chief of police John Seto reviewed the problem and success statements from the council’s planning retreat.

Problem: Inadequate police staffing resources to do proactive and consistent enforcement and community outreach.
Success #1: Part I crime rates (major crimes) are among the safest 20% of communities in the country.
Success #2: Community perception of safety is high.
Success #3: Police officers have 25%-30% of time available for proactive policing.

Police: Crime Rates

Seto told the council that he would like to hear some input about measurement of that 20% standard. The way the city of Ann Arbor analyzes its crime statistics, he explained, is through the Federal Bureau of Investigation crime statistics reports. Those reports group cities into different population sizes, he explained. Ann Arbor falls into the population size of 100,000-250,000. For 2011 – the last year for which the city has complete data – 206 communities fell into that group. Ann Arbor is ranked 26th out of those 206, which translates to the top 12% – so Ann Arbor is in the top 20%. By that standard, the city is meeting success as defined in the statement right now. So the strategies and action items related to that success statement, Seto explained, relate to the idea of maintaining and continuing what the city is doing to achieve that success that has already been achieved.

Strategies for achieving the top 20% safest community standard included in the draft work plan are:

• Increase efficiencies in communicating with the public through Neighborhood Watch and social media.
• Increase communications with other law enforcement agencies within Washtenaw County.
• Seek opportunities for collaboration with other law enforcement agencies to reduce crime.
• Create a Crime Strategy Unit with the mission of reducing crime.

The strategies were heavily focused on communication, Seto observed.

Some of that increased communication could require additional staff support, he ventured. He noted that the reductions in overall police force staffing have not only affected sworn officers, but also civilian support staff. A lot of factors are also outside of the department’s control, he noted – like economic conditions, or the policies of other judicial systems. Seto summarized by saying that the department needed to continue to do what it is doing, and to increase some of the efficiencies through better communications. Invited to comment on the strategies and action items for the first success statement, councilmembers did not offer any feedback to Seto.

Police: Perceptions of Safety

Seto told the council that some additional direction on the second success statement might be required – noting that the perception of safety is highly subjective. One of the strategies listed is to participate in the National Citizens Survey to determine the current community perception of safety. He ventured that some councilmembers might remember that the last survey was conducted in 2008. So he was suggesting that another one could be done – to gather a more current measure of Ann Arbor residents’ perception of safety. Based on the results of the survey, additional action items could be generated, he suggested. The cost of the National Citizen Survey – a tool for measuring community perception of safety – is estimated to be around $15,000-$20,000, Seto told the council.

It’s all about visibility, he said, and allowing people to see the police. It’s also important to have accurate information available so that people have accurate statistical data about crime – instead of having to rely on what they hear from their neighbors. As challenges, Seto noted that there could be a trade-off between assigning additional resources to downtown foot patrols and the department’s ability to react effectively to other situations. That could have an impact on Part I crime rates.

Police: Council Reaction – Perception of Safety

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) said he appreciated the way the success statements are defined because the goal is not to hire officers – but rather to have a safe community. He wanted to keep that goal in front of the council and to talk about approaches to reaching that goal. But he said that the community’s perception of safety has to be taken with a great deal of caution. In connection with some high-profile sexual assaults recently, Warpehoski said people had an understandable fear about “strangers in the bushes, and parking garages,” but he pointed out that most sexual assaults take place in homes where the victim knows the assailant: Somebody might feel safe with someone they know, but might not actually be safe. So improving a sense of safety is not always about making an actually safer community, he said. He noted that it’s a nuanced issue.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Warpehoski felt that it was important for people to actually be safe, and then also feel safe as a function of that real safety. He indicated support for the use of the National Citizens Survey as a tool to measure perception of safety – but felt it was important to decide in advance of administering that survey a clear goal for the metrics.

If a clear standard were not identified before administering the survey, he feared that once the survey was done, whether the numbers reflected in the survey were too high or too low would a political discussion as opposed to a data-driven discussion. So he wanted to identify a specific numerical goal for perception of safety in the same way the council had identified a numerical goal for Part I crime rates.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) felt like there was probably some benchmark that would be reliable. Seto indicated that the 2008 survey data included benchmarks. If there were benchmarks associated with the 2008 survey, then Higgins wanted to know from Seto what was done with that information and what the results of the survey were. Seto told Higgins he would provide a link to a summary of the public safety portion of the survey. [.pdf of 2008 Ann Arbor National Citizens Survey]

Public safety results from 2008 Ann Arbor National Citizens Survey.

Police: Budgeting – Hiring, Staffing Level

When he laid out the costs for some of the action items, Seto indicated that an additional officer for fiscal year 2014 would cost $78,000 and in fiscal year 2015 it would be $86,000 – due to step increases, Seto explained.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked if there would be an explicit connection in the budget presented by Powers between the numbers and council’s priorities. Powers indicated there could be. One of the outcomes that would be helpful for the staff would be some council discussion on, for example, recurring revenues and recurring expenditures, he said. It would be useful for him to know where those revenues and expenditures coordinate, conflict, or collide with the priority area of policing and the need for additional resources.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) before the March 11 work session started.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) indicated that his feedback on that question was: If we don’t have recurring revenues for something, we shouldn’t be making recurring expenditures associated with it. Petersen indicated that she wanted a notation in the proposed budget that specific expenses reflected the implementation of the council’s priorities.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) stated her expectation that the council’s priorities – especially those related to public safety – would be reflected in the proposed budget. And that doesn’t just mean how to spend new money, she said. It also means a reallocation of existing resources to the council’s priority areas. That’s how she interpreted the direction that the council had given the city administrator. Added personnel would be at a cost.

Last year Lumm had asked the question about the “magic number” for sworn officers. Some back-and-forth between Lumm and Seto established that the current authorized number of sworn officers is 119 and there are currently 117 officers, after recent hires. She wanted to see the city on a “glide path” to get to higher numbers, so that the police agency can become not just reactive but also proactive. She felt it is desirable to have additional foot patrols in the downtown, but at the same time it is important to balance that against pulling them from some other place.

Later in the working session, Seto indicated a problem with not knowing if somebody is going to be eliminated from the training program, which is what happened to one of the two people who were supposed to bring back the staff number of sworn officers to 119. Seto indicated that the department did not have a policy of staffing more than the authorized number of FTEs.

Lumm objected somewhat to the characterization of all the “new” hiring, saying that all of the new hires had replaced retired positions. She felt it was important to clarify that the size of the police force had not grown. She noted that the department had strategically held that number lower than 119 because of the overtime bill that has to be paid – so not filling those positions is freeing up the cash to pay for overtime. [Lumm's characterization was based on remarks made by Seto at the Feb. 25 working session.]

Powers weighed in to correct Seto’s statement about authorized staff levels. He noted that when there are talented, competent candidates, he’s given Seto authorization to hire above the 119 level. He’s given the chief direction to “over-hire” in the event that there are very highly qualified candidates who apply. Seto has also not been restricted in his hiring in order to achieve overtime pay, Powers said. Powers also noted that the department has proceeded with hiring replacements despite losing $350,000 in funding from the Ann Arbor Public Schools. So the staff’s direction – following the council’s priorities – has been to continue to strive to maintain the staffing level at 119 FTEs. He wanted to make sure that the staff understands the direction it’s been given by the city council is to maintain staffing – not to reduce it to offset overtime or to compensate for lost revenue from the Ann Arbor Public Schools.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) looked at the police department staffing levels as a whole in 2001, when the staff total – sworn officers and civilians – was 244. In 2009 the level was down to 209. And in 2013 the level was down to 146, which he characterized as a precipitous drop over the last five years. He didn’t figure that the city could make up 60 FTEs anytime soon, and he knew that Seto did not want to say what the magic number was for the right staffing level. But he felt like the city had a long way to go to return to being a proactive department.

So what he was hearing from the administration, Kunselman said, was that the council needs to find some revenue. He asked Powers if additional direction would need to come from the council in order to direct any additional revenue toward police and fire staffing. “Or will that be something that we can just assume that you are going to want to do?” Powers told Kunselman that one of the desired outcomes from that night was for the council to have some discussion in a work session setting regarding priorities. Given that feedback, Powers could – with Seto and Crawford – develop a proposed budget. If it’s not to the satisfaction of the city council, the council would have the opportunity to amend the proposed budget.

Police: Budgeting – Overtime

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) noted she had raised the question of overtime at a previous work session. Adding more police officers does not necessarily mean that the city would be spending more money, she contended, pointing out that this could result in a reduction in overtime. There is a “sweet spot,” she said, for the hiring of additional police officers, that would somewhat reduce overtime, even if it wasn’t dollar-for-dollar. In the ensuing back-and-forth, Seto indicated that he did not believe there was a great deal of efficiency to be gained by eliminating overtime.

But Kailasapathy wanted to find that “sweet spot.” Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) questioned why there are currently only 117 officers on the job, when the city had budgeted for 119. Seto indicated that the department would have been at full strength (119) but one of the officers to whom AAPD had made an offer declined at the last minute and took a job with a different department. Another one had not made it through the training program. Higgins wanted to know if 119 was the proper number of sworn officers that would optimize overtime costs.

Tom Crawford then gave a more detailed analysis of the department’s overtime expenditures, which total around $1.2 million. Only about $250,000 of that total amount is attributable to scheduling, he noted. Reimbursable overtime – like University of Michigan football games – cause a spike for a couple of months, but you would not hire FTEs to cover those spikes, he said, when the cost is covered by the university.

The next category of overtime is holiday pay and court appearances. For that category, as you add staff and proactive enforcement, that will cause an increase in overtime costs, Crawford explained. And that category of overtime costs has gone down as staffing levels overall have declined, he said. So if staffing levels were to increase again, he would expect overtime in that category also to increase. The smaller category of around $250,000 equates to about 8,000 hours of work per year, which would be 3-4 FTEs. He did not feel that hiring additional FTEs would help reduce that overtime. “You’re at a very low level of overtime already.” He allowed the council might have other reasons to want to increase police staffing levels, but he did not feel that the desire to reduce overtime expenses should be one of those reasons.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) questioned the equation of $250,000 to 3-4 FTEs. He pointed to the various costs per officer that had been provided – $78,000, $86,000 and $110,000 – so Taylor indicated that he had a tough time reconciling $250,000 with four FTEs. Crawford explained that he’d used the rate of overtime pay, and divided that into $250,000. So $250,000 divided by $30/hour yields roughly 8,000 hours of work. Given 2,000 work hours a year per employee, roughly, that works out to four employees, Crawford explained. Taylor did not seem illuminated by Crawford’s explanation, but allowed, “This may not be important enough to keep talking about.” Still, Taylor continued by suggesting that it seemed to him the calculation should be dividing $250,000 by the $78,000 or the $86,000 figure. Taylor eventually seemed convinced that hour-by-hour it’s cheaper to pay the overtime than to hire the FTEs.

Police: Staffing Levels – Core Functions

Kunselman raised the point that in addition to less crime and fewer police officers, the city also had less revenue coming from officers performing core responsibilities, like traffic enforcement.

Ann Arbor traffic citations: 2006-2012 [No data was available for 2010]

Ann Arbor parking violations: 2006-2012

Kunselman concluded that if the city wants to perform core responsibilities really well, they need to add to the number of FTEs in the police department. As an example, he noted that for a while the city had focused on pedestrian traffic safety. Then “all of a sudden” the hotspot was taxicab ordinance enforcement. [The taxicab ordinance enforcement was actually pushed by Kunselman, who chairs the city's taxicab board.] What’s going to be next? he wondered. He compared the approach to Whac-A-Mole where things are addressed in one area, but would pop up again in another place. It seemed to him that more FTEs were needed to perform core responsibilities, saying that the 60-FTE drop in the last five years was pretty significant in his mind. With all the talk about successes, he felt there are a lot of things that are still not getting done.

Total Ann Arbor police department staff strength: 1997-2012. CFO Tom Crawford cautioned against using simple staff levels as an indicator of the amount of police services being delivered to the community.

Seto reminded Kunselman that the 60 FTEs includes civilians. And Crawford pointed out that it’s difficult to draw conclusions from a chart. As an example, Crawford noted that by contracting with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office for dispatching services, the city was continuing to provide dispatch service – but not by using full-time city employees. That meant the FTE count went down, but the service was still being provided. In other cases, the FTE count might go down because the same service was transferred to a different department.

As examples, Crawford gave an information technology position that was transferred from the police department to IT, and accounting positions in the police department that were just absorbed by the accounting services department. Crawford also pointed out that through technology and capital investments, service levels can be increased, even though the FTE count might not stay the same. So he did not view the FTE count as the only way to evaluate how much service was being delivered.

Police: Proactive Policing

Seto recalled some remarks he’d made to the council at their previous work session, when he’d told them he felt the department was very effective at reacting. Statistics show the department is effective at making arrests, he said.

Ann Arbor physical arrests: 2006-2012

But there’s not a lot of flexibility in the staffing levels to allow for proactive engagement, Seto said. The proactive engagement that is currently done in the department is not at the same level as the department used to do, he said. Seto indicated that additional personnel would be needed, depending on the desired level of additional proactive and community engagement.

Police: Proactive Policing – Council Reaction

Higgins returned to the success statement the council had adopted related to proactive policing. Proactive policing can mean a lot of different things to different people, she said. She asked Seto to define what he was talking about. Seto indicated that the success statements were given to him by the city council. Higgins ask Seto again to define what proactive policing meant to him. Seto referenced the success statement: Officers will have 25-30% of their time available for proactive policing. He noted that the police department had developed an electronic data sheet that maintains accurately all of the activities the officers perform. That was rolled out in January, and it still has a few bugs in the system, Seto allowed. But he noted that each category of activity can be accurately captured.

In this extract from the city of Ann Arbor’s digital activity report system, 22 minutes were logged on downtown foot patrol.

He felt it would be possible to pull out specific categories – such as downtown foot patrol, or neighborhood patrol – and evaluate whether officer activities in those categories add up to 25-30%. And that could be the gauge that the department could use. But clear definitions of categories of activities that constitute proactive policing would need to be defined, he said. He allowed that his idea of proactive policing might differ a little bit from councilmembers.

Higgins told Seto that she still hadn’t heard what his definition of proactive policing is. He told Higgins it has to be dedicated time that is not obligated to respond to calls coming over the radio. Higgins ventured that it meant engaging one-on-one with the community. She imagined it meant when officers were on foot patrol in the downtown, talking with citizens and “just being personable.”

Seto agreed with that description, adding that it could mean taking an hour of time to go to a neighborhood association meeting, or visiting the schools. There are a lot of activities that he felt could be characterized as proactive. The parameter he would use, he said, would be that it’s time when you’re not answering the radio – you’re free to make contact with citizens and businesses.

Higgins ventured that an officer on a patrol could pull up to a city park and then take 15 minutes to take a stroll through the park and see what’s actually happening on the park grounds. Seto agreed, saying that is what officers do now as free time permits. The difference between the way the department approaches that now, and the way the department did previously, is that previously they would have an officer dedicated eight hours a day to do just that. Now it’s only as free time permits that officers would walk around in Briarwood Mall or around downtown, for example. Some of that can be accomplished now, Seto said, but not with as much flexibility.

Warpehoski indicated that his recollection from the planning retreat in late 2012 is that the definition of proactive policing had come from the consultant who facilitated that retreat. The consultant had referenced an outside standard. The 25-30% figure makes sense to him if it’s related to a third-party standard. If the city itself is coming up with a number and assigning some other definition to it, he was less certain. If the definition was something more akin to what Higgins and Seto had just described, and if that definition was unique to Ann Arbor, then the question of 25-30% as appropriate needed to be revisited, Warpehoski felt. His own definition of proactive policing would include the behaviors that Higgins had just described, but he wanted to get some clarity. He ventured that defining proactive policing was not something that Ann Arbor had to do completely on its own.

From left: mayor John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and city administrator Steve Powers.

Taylor echoed what Warpehoski had said – and he wanted to push that sentiment even further. The success statement by the council, he said, struck him more as an action item rather than a separate goal.

Taylor felt that the goal is to be actually safe and to feel safe. If the way to achieve that goal is to have zero proactive policing – every officer in a patrol car just driving around town – that would be fine with him. If it means 50% proactive policing, “you tell me.” For his part, Taylor would “downshift” on the third success statement and focus in on the first two. “If you come back and tell me in order to get to one and two you need 25-30% of time available for proactive policing, I’d say, ‘Thank you, chief, we’ll see what we can do.’”

Seto told Taylor that the staff was simply trying to create some options for the success statement that the council had identified. Seto pointed out that one of the recommended action items was to develop standards for measuring the impact of proactive policing. He felt that proactive policing may have an impact on success statement number one, for example. Crime might go up, because there are more reported crimes – because people feel more comfortable reporting crimes. It also might have an impact on the perception of crime – positively or negatively.

Teall said that to her, the core function of policing was to respond to calls, and that core function needs to be completed in any case. To her, the percentage of proactive policing loses meaning. In her experience, when she contacts the police about issues in the neighborhood, they have been addressed reactively, but then intense proactive policing begins in an area that really needs that extra attention. If more proactive policing were done everywhere that would be great, she said, but she felt that it should in some sense be driven by a need and fed by reactive policing.

Seto indicated agreement with Teall. He agreed that the department is reactive to concerns identified by residents or by the city council – and that resulted in proactive efforts in a particular area. Seto also pointed out that the department gets requests for enforcement of traffic safety or traffic enforcement. So more proactive policing could be taking time away from traffic enforcement or other code enforcement in other areas, he explained. “It’s all a balancing act,” he said.

With respect to the balancing act, Warpehoski felt that Taylor’s idea – to look at the first two goals and then tell the council what it would take to achieve those goals – made a lot of sense. He encouraged a data-driven approach, alluding to a report from San Jose, California – academic research on the relationship between police staffing and crime. Citing that research, Warpehoski contended there is a general consensus that simply adding or subtracting police personnel will not impact crime. The report indicates that the “hotspot model” – identifying where there’s a problem and focusing resources there – does work. Seto noted that even with reduced police staffing, the long-term trends are that crime is down, not just here in Ann Arbor but in other communities as well.

Fire Protection

In Ann Arbor, the chief of police is also head of all public safety – so fire protection also falls under John Seto’s general administration. Seto gave the overview for the fire department draft work plan before inviting fire chief Chuck Hubbard to comment and respond to questions from councilmembers.

Problem: Current fire staffing and deployment is not optimized to meet the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standards for Fire Suppression.
Success: Fire station locations, number and infrastructure are optimized to meet community needs and industry standards, within City resources.

Options from the draft work plan for fire safety:

• The Station Restructure Plan.
• Reduce minimum staffing by deploying light rescue vehicles, which can be operated with two fire personnel. This could reduce minimum staffing without closing any stations.
• Hire 23 new employees so that each of the existing 5 stations can be staffed with a minimum of 4 fire personnel each day given the current contract language for daily staffing.
• Work with employees to develop ways of maintaining minimum staffing.

Seto indicated that more clarification was needed – to determine what the community’s needs and desires are with respect to fire suppression and medical response. Should the department emphasize fire suppression, medical response, or both? [Later during the work session, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) told Seto that he was adamant that both fire suppression and medical response were priorities.]

Ann Arbor EMS responses: 2006-2012

Ann Arbor fires extinguished: 2006-2012

Seto told the council that more clarity was needed from them on that point. Depending on the answer to that question, Seto said, different action statements might be appropriate. The new station reconfiguration plan is a possibility. Also a possibility is reducing required staffing by deploying light rescue vehicles. Hiring 23 new employees was another possible action for the council to take – which would allow the operation of the current five stations with both fire suppression and medical response as priorities.

Fire Protection: Light Rescue Trucks

Margie Teal (Ward 4) indicated that light rescue vehicles had been talked about for a long time. She was not sure why the city had not already moved ahead in that direction. She felt it was pretty clear a while back that this would be a great cost saver. She wondered what the holdup was.

Ann Arbor fire chief Chuck Hubbard.

Fire chief Chuck Hubbard responded to Teall by explaining that the department had put in a bid for a light rescue vehicle a few months ago. In the final stages, he explained, the vendor “came up with some things that were not discussed initially” – so that vehicle had to be re-bid. The department is in the process of doing that right now.

Assistant city attorney Mary Fales, he said, is currently reviewing the request for proposals. As soon as she gives a green light, that light rescue vehicle will go out to bid again. He indicated that one light rescue vehicle was currently in service. Once the new RFP is issued and another vehicle is purchased, that would bring the total to two.

Fire Protection: What the Truck?

Mayor John Hieftje asked for an update on the tower truck the city is purchasing. Hubbard said he expected delivery of the new tower truck next month. The day after the work session, a final inspection was to be done in Dublin, Ohio, he said, where the truck is being built. He expected delivery of the truck by April.

Fire Protection: Inspections

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked about redeployment of staff to raise revenue as it relates to increased fire inspections. She told Hubbard that she had received some feedback from “customers” and she felt that there are a lot of people in the community questioning why there is suddenly an increase in annual fire inspections. Depending on the property class, inspections may not be required at all, or might be required only every two years, not annually, she observed. She said the justification and rationale for the inspections is not clearly understood. If it’s a safety enhancement policy that’s one thing, she said. It’s a revenue enhancement policy then “not so good,” she said.

Ann Arbor fire inspections: 2006-2012

Hubbard told Lumm that fire inspections are a proactive approach to safety. In the department’s past history, it had not been particularly diligent in that area. He could not speak to why that was – because he was not the chief at the time. “But under my tenure that has become a priority – to be proactive as opposed to react.” These inspections are critical, he said, for businesses and for tenants. He told Lumm that he’d received her email and there were some statements in it that were not accurate, and he would be responding to it. The annual compared to biannual inspection is one of the items, he said. Re-inspections can be required, he explained, if an issue is identified and the fire department inspector needed to return, to ensure that the problem had been rectified. Hubbard stressed that the inspection program is not designed to increase revenue but rather to increase safety for Ann Arbor’s citizens. “We want to prevent fires as opposed to going to put them out.”

Fire Protection: Station Restructuring Plan

Lumm asked about the fire station restructuring plan. She felt that the restructuring plan was based on the wrong premise and answering the wrong question. Rather than responding to the question of what the necessary staffing levels and equipment were, the restructuring plan was an attempt to optimize service, given staffing levels. Lumm wanted confirmation about the question of whether the plan is still “hanging out there.” Is this still being considered as a valid option? she asked.

Hubbard gave a straightforward answer: “As far as I’m concerned, yes. It is still a valid option.” He acknowledged that Lumm’s characterization was accurate – that the station reconfiguration plan had been designed around current staffing levels. He reminded Lumm that when he had put the plan together it was designed to meet the NFPA and the OSHA standards – to provide the best service the department possibly could with the staffing levels that it had. So he considered it to be a viable option.

Lumm wanted to know what the parameters were for framing the issue. She felt that the city was not looking at the issue in the right way.

Fire Protection: Station Reconfiguration

Kunselman passed along some praise from a constituent he’d met over the weekend who’d experienced a dryer fire in his house. Ann Arbor firefighters had gone “above and beyond” and had done everything in their power to save the constituent’s possessions. The constituent was also adamant that if the truck had to come from someplace else besides the Huron Parkway station [Station #6], the house would not have been saved. It’s that kind of concern that led Kunselman to conclude that closing any fire stations was not an option – whether there’s three people on the truck or four. What’s paramount, he said, is to get a truck on the scene, so that some kind of action could be taken.

Kunselman reported that he had attended one of the public meetings on the station reconfiguration proposal – at Cobblestone Farm. He’d heard from a heart attack victim, who told him that firefighter first responders had saved his life. Kunselman weighed in adamantly that the priority of the fire department should be both fire suppression and emergency medical response. He felt there should be a way to find a hybrid solution where the downtown fire station had the staffing to put four people on a truck, to cover the denser downtown area. He didn’t know how it would be possible to hire an additional 23 firefighters. But if the city could get a few more, he wondered if that might relieve the pressure to close stations. He felt it was very important to the community that a station in their neighborhood be open – so that they would feel safe and that they would be safer.

Fire Protection: Station Reconfiguration – Light Rescue Trucks

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked Hubbard if he was implying that the acquisition of additional light rescue vehicles could possibly mean that the existing five stations could be kept open as they are now. Hubbard explained that light rescue vehicles require only two personnel. The current labor contract with the firefighters union requires three personnel for any vehicle that carries water. Light rescue vehicles don’t carry water, but they are equipped with all the medical equipment and firefighter tools and gear. The only thing missing is water. So in a situation that might trigger overtime to staff a three-person truck, when there’s a two-person truck that can be put in service, that prevents the need to pay overtime to the third person, Hubbard explained. And that keeps the station open. If the community’s priority is for medical response, then a two-person rescue truck could staff the station. Petersen ventured that the answer to her question was yes, which Hubbard confirmed.

Teall questioned the idea that with one additional light rescue vehicle, all the stations could be kept open. She felt that depends on the community needs. For Kunselman’s example, she wondered what would happen if a three-person truck from the Huron Parkway station arrived at a fire: How many people could be sent in to fight the fire? Hubbard told Teall she was referring to the OSHA law – which requires a two-in-two-out deployment for a total of four firefighters on the scene before a firefighter could enter a burning building. That’s the principle that the restructuring plan was designed around.

The idea would be to put four firefighters on the scene together, so that they could safely attack the fire. He noted that a dryer fire, as in Kunselman’s example, is a lot different from a structure fire. When you pull up to an actual structure fire, you need the people, he explained. Teall asked if Kunselman’s example had been a structure fire, how would that have been different? Hubbard told her that there would have been a lot more to do, for one thing. Firefighters from other stations would have eventually arrived on the scene.

Map 1. Ann Arbor fire chief Chuck Hubbard’s plan is to protect the city from fires with three stations (red helmets): Station 1, Station 2, and Station 5. Closed would be Station 3, Station 6 and Station 4 (gray helmets). Station 2 is currently not used and would need to be re-opened. The light blue area is the part of the city that is reachable by at least four fighters within four minutes. Red dots indicate fire locations over the last decade.

What the restructuring was designed to do was to get four firefighters on the scene at the same time together – as opposed to arriving separately. When you arrive with three people instead of four, it’s rolling the dice, Hubbard said. If two people go in, they essentially don’t have an escape plan. Still, Hubbard said, “a firefighter is going to do their job.” The problem comes, he said, if someone gets killed or hurt. Then we have to answer the hard questions, he said: Why didn’t you have the two-in-two-out? Why didn’t you wait?

That’s why you try to design a plan that is safer for firefighters and for residents, Hubbard explained. The extra two minutes or three minutes to get everyone there is, in some cases, the time you need to take. In the station reconfiguration plan, for some areas of the city, the result was to actually get trucks on the scene much quicker, he said. It’s hard to have a fire station on every corner, Hubbard said.

Teall made clear that she was not opposed to the station reconfiguration plan. She felt it’s part of the efficiencies that Lumm had alluded to. She wondered if the council is going to have a discussion on the question of fire suppression versus medical response. She recalled having community conversations about the issue back in 2002. When Huron Valley Ambulance pulls up at the same time a “giant fire truck” rolls up, she said, the city is paying for the expense of that truck every time it leaves the station. She felt that the medical response issue needed to be discussed, and community needs should be determined.

Fire Protection: Station Reconfiguration – Two-in/Two-out

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) didn’t follow the logic that all four firefighters had to arrive at the same time. If three firefighters arrived on scene, she felt they could still start on the prep work. Why is there a fixation on the idea that all four firefighters need to arrive at the same time? she wondered.

Hubbard allowed that there are, in fact, outside operations that have to take place before the fire can be attacked. Even one person can at least pull the hose off the truck and get it laid out on the ground, he noted. But minutes count, he said. And if there’s a rescue situation, then that’s very labor intensive. It requires a lot of bodies, and you need them immediately. If four firefighters arrive together, they can start to put that plan together en route, and when they arrive they can go right to work, instead of waiting. And by waiting, he didn’t mean just standing there doing nothing – because there’s a lot of things you can do even without the four personnel. But if there’s a rescue situation, then there is a lot of very intensive work – ladders that need to be raised and the like – that needs to get done very quickly. If there is a possible rescue, he noted, the firefighters will go in. The problem comes when they’re trying to attempt a rescue and something goes wrong and there’s no one to come get them out.

Kailasapathy indicated she was not interested in exposing firefighters to an unsafe situation. She was not asking that firefighters enter a burning structure without having the required two-in-two-out configuration. At the same time, she felt that having four people arrive at the same time seemed to be a goal in and of itself. If time was a so important, then even if there were fewer people at a closer station, it would be better to get them there immediately, she felt.

Mayor John Hieftje indicated that it had come up many times in conversation – if there were three firefighters on scene, and a rescue needed to be performed, then they would attempt a rescue. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) told Hubbard that she was confused – because she had heard him say that every minute counted, but also that sometimes there was no choice but to just wait. Higgins indicated that Ward 4 under the current configuration has large sections that are within the acceptable time frame. Under the station reconfiguration plan, there were large sections of the ward that had unacceptable time limits.

Higgins told Hubbard that when he said the station reconfiguration plan is “still on the table,” she did not feel it was still on the council table. She did not know that the council had said yes or no to it. She only knew that the plan had been introduced to the community at public meetings. She did not feel like the council had continued that dialogue at the council table – about whether to go forward with it. She felt the council had not yet given the fire chief enough input to give clear direction about whether the station reconfiguration plan was the right path or not. The council had not done its job in giving the fire chief clear direction, she said. Hubbard agreed with Higgins’ assessment.

Fire Protection:  Station Reconfiguration – Decision

Hieftje then indicated it was very apparent to him that the fire station restructuring plan “isn’t going anywhere.” He felt it would be beneficial to take it off the table and if a vote of the council was needed to do that, than the council could vote. But he felt it was already very apparent that it was not going anywhere. He didn’t feel that it had anywhere close to a majority of the council’s support. “So this might be a good time to just say: Let’s work with the stations we have.”

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) hews to the old adage that it doesn’t work if you don’t plug it in.

Lumm quipped that she wanted to make a motion. Hieftje cautioned that the council did not make decisions at working sessions. Higgins picked up on Hieftje’s wording that the city would continue to work with the stations it has – but she pointed out that the city still has a station that is closed [Station #2]. She’s heard repeatedly that Station #2 is an integral piece of the station reconfiguration plan because of its location. She wondered what the final cost would be a staffing all six stations. She was interested in seeing that analysis.

Taylor understood the station reconfiguration proposal not as something that the city was definitely planning to do. Hubbard had been queried about it, and had said it remained a possibility in the world of possibilities. It was a useful topic of conversation, Taylor felt. It was useful to have the clarity of Hieftje’s understanding of sentiment around the table. Taylor felt it was useful for the public to understand that the station reconfiguration proposal was not something that was before the council for its consideration.

Kunselman thanked Hieftje for making sure that the station reconfiguration plan doesn’t go anywhere. Lumm thanked the mayor for saying loudly and clearly that the proposal is no longer “hanging out there” as a possibility.

Fire Protection: Education

Warpehoski said he’d had frequent chats with a retired firefighter who lives in his ward and who talked about the need for fire prevention and education. Warpehoski ventured that if he had a dryer fire in his house, there would be several minutes spent smelling the smoke, wondering what it was, and figuring out what to do before calling 911. Community training in recognizing signs of dryer fire, for example, could be useful in reducing the time between a fire actually making a 911 call.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

On a May evening in 1866, 15-year-old Ann Arborite Maria Benham got ready for bed in her Third Ward home, which also housed her cabinetmaker father Warren, her mother Rachel, and siblings George, Menora, and Alice.

Maria was a grammar school student at the Union School at Huron and State Streets, later the site of Ann Arbor High School and eventually renamed the Frieze Building. The school year was almost over, and the annual yearbook was about to be printed.

Advertisement from the Dec. 25, 1869 Ypsilanti Commercial.

When it came out, Maria’s name had an asterisk.

Maria removed the glass chimney of her kerosene lamp and flipped her apron at the flame to puff it out. Instead, the lamp exploded, enveloping her in flames. Maria ran downstairs towards the cistern. Someone spotted her and threw his overcoat over her flaming body, suffocating the fire.

Maria had severe burns over her entire body. After an agonizing night, she died at 6 a.m. She would have been sixteen that August.

Her story, originally reported by the Ann Arbor Argus, was reprinted by papers in Hillsdale, Marshall, and elsewhere in the state. Unfortunately, it was a familiar tale. Kerosene lamp explosions were tragically common in 19th-century Michigan. It seems odd, because kerosene is a relatively stable, non-explosive fuel, far less volatile than such lighter petroleum products as gasoline or naptha. A lit match thrown into a cup of room-temperature kerosene will simply go out.

Maria had been born in 1850, around the dawn of the domestic oil industry. Many unscrupulous oil refiners of that era pursued profits at the cost of lives like hers.

Refining Kerosene

The problem began at the oil refinery. Early crude oil refineries in the mid-19th century functioned like whiskey stills. A typical refinery consisted of a giant cylindrical metal vat that received the crude oil. A pipe ran from the top of the vat, descended the side, and entered a long trough filled with cold water, emerging at the end of the trough. A fire burned beneath the vat.

Crude oil is a mixture of many liquid hydrocarbons, each with a differently-sized molecule. Those with smaller molecules such as benzene and gasoline are more volatile, and those with longer, heavier molecues such as kerosene and lubricating oil, less so. When a fire was started under the vat, vapors from the more volatile compounds began ascending into the pipe and condensed on the inner pipe walls. The condensed fuel dripped from the pipe’s end into a container.

As the heat beneath the vat was raised, successively heavier hydrocarbons vaporized. The worker at the collection container could measure the specific gravity of the liquid coming out to determine when it became heavy enough to be called pure kerosene.

Dangerous Mix

Kerosene was a prime mover behind the petroleum industry from the 1860s until the popularization of the gasoline engine in the 1890s. In Maria Benham’s day, gasoline and other light fuels were regarded as the refinery’s cheap byproducts and sometimes even discarded. They were so cheap – a few pennies per gallon – that many refiners fudged the line between the light fuels and the more expensive pure kerosene, and they adulterated the kerosene with cheap fuels.

The liquids mix readily, and the lighter fuels lowered the flash point, or ignition temperature, to dangerous levels. Once the “kerosene” was delivered around the state, some vendors also took their cut by adulterating it even further.

The Dec. 25, 1869 Ypsilanti Commercial advertised a “Non-Explosive Lamp” that offered “Absolute Safety, Economy, Beauty, and double the light given by any other lamp.” The problem, however, was not about lamp construction or strength.

It was that Michiganders had Molotov cocktails on their dining room tables.

Regulation of Kerosene

The year 1869 also saw Michigan’s first legislation against adulterated kerosene, “An Act to provide for the Inspection of Illuminating Oils Manufactured from Petroleum.”

This inaugural law outlined a ramshackle inspection plan. The law stated that if five citizens from any county petitioned the Governor, he would appoint an inspector for that county. The inspector had to provide testing equipment himself, though the nature of that equipment wasn’t specified. One large loophole in the law said that kerosene from outside the state did not have to be re-inspected.

Cleveland-based Standard Oil was rapidly expanding and shipping its kerosene into Michigan. At the same time, Ohio’s formerly stringent kerosene inspection laws, mandating independent inspectors whom refining companies were forced to pay, underwent radical change. Under the new law, the independent inspectors were gone and Ohio refiners were now allowed to inspect their own product.

Closed cup system for kerosene testing.

The issue of adulterated kerosene was so pressing that it was a prime concern of the Michigan’s Board of Health when it formed in 1873. Agricultural College (MSU) chemistry professor (and University of Michigan grad) Robert Kedzie was the board’s chairman of the committee on “Poisons, Explosives, Chemicals, Accidents, and Special Sources of Danger to Life and Health.”

The board’s inaugural report includes his lengthy paper on the dangers of adulterated kerosene. Kedzie specified a method of building a standardized apparatus to be used as a statewide oil-tester. He also reported the results of testing oil samples gathered from around the state, from a variety of oil companies.

Most were advertised as having a flash point of 150 degrees Fahrenheit. Tables in the report show that almost all of them had a lower flash point; one sample from Dowagiac had a flash point of only 90 degrees, meaning that on a hot summer day, the liquid could begin to vaporize flammable gas.

Kedzie also addressed an even more alarming issue – the fraudulent marketing of benzene and naptha as safe illuminating oils for use in home lanterns. It is sold, he wrote, “under many fanciful names, e.g.: “Liquid Gas,” “Aurora Oil,” “Safety Gas,” “Petrolene,” “Puroline,” “Black Diamond,” “Septoline,” “Anchor Oil,” “Sunlight Non-Explosive Burning Fluid,” etc.”

Yet another scam, Kedzie wrote, was the sale of “secret” recipes that purported to remove the dangerous qualities of benzene or gasoline. The absurd recipes told consumers to add a mishmash of ingredients to gallons of gasoline or benzene in order to render them safe. The ingredients included chopped potatoes, salt, alum, oil of sassafras, and cream of tartar, and had no effect whatsoever on the volatility of the dangerous fuels.

The advertising circular for one such benzene-based recipe for Sunlight Oil, a company based in Marshall, Mich., read:

Although this oil has been before the public but a few months, nearly 350,000 families are making and using it. And wherever it has been introduced, kerosene and other burning fluids have been set aside. This celebrated oil was discovered and first invented in June, 1867, by the great French chemist and geologist, the late Dr. S. A. Culver of Paris. Fortunately for us, being near relatives of his, we succeeded, before his death, in obtaining the sole right to manufacture and sell the oil in all parts of the United States and Canada.

Perhaps it was gratitude for this munificent bequest that put the company in an altruistic mood. According to their ad, the Sunlight Company, run by one M. Wagner & Co. in Marshall, Michigan, was freeing citizens from thieving manufacturers and vendors by allowing families to manufacture their own fuel at home. Those who purchased the recipe for $2 [$36 in today’s dollars] had to keep it absolutely secret.

“For some reason M. Wagner & Co. did not cultivate the home trade,” wrote Kedzie. “[T]heir business had been carried on for months before the people of Marshall knew much about it, and even then it was very difficult for residents of Marshall to gain admittance to their office, or to buy the Sunlight Oil, or the recipe for manufacturing the same. The firm advertised in papers distant from the State, and most of their business was done in other States.”

The recipe for another benzene-based miracle fuel, French Burning Oil, originated from A. Coulter & Co in Charlotte, Michigan. The company generously allowed that the recipe, though it had to be kept secret, could be handed down to one’s heirs.

Kedzie wrote, “A person carrying a lighted lamp filled with such materials holds his death warrant in his hand, and a stumble may furnish an executioner at any moment. They should be labeled HOMICIDE MADE EASY; OR, EVERY MAN HIS OWN EXECUTIONER!” [Emphasis Kedzie’s].

Continued Problems with Kerosene

Despite the Board of Health’s alarm and recommendations, the trade in adulterated kerosene and unsafe illuminating oils continued. A decade after Maria’s death, “[o]ver 6,000 people perished in these United States last year, victims of kerosene accidents,” said the November 2, 1876 issue of the insurance trade paper Baltimore Underwriter.

Fifteen years later, the deadly fuel was still taking lives. In July of 1891 the Michigan legislature changed the oil-testing method from the “closed cup” system that Kedzie endorsed, whose lid trapped vapors and simulated the actual conditions inside a lamp, to an “open cup” system.

Open cup system for kerosene testing.

Because the flammable kerosene vapor evaporates away more readily in the open cup system, the effect was that the flash point appeared higher than it actually was, making possible the sale of lower-grade fuels. The more stringent old law had been “set aside by the machinations of the Standard Oil Trust, assisted by a weak legislature, and … has been productive of the loss of many lives and the destruction of thousands of dollars worth of property,” said the March 29, 1893 issue of Paint, Oil, and Drug Review.

The same month that the test was weakened, the number of kerosene accidents around the state increased. In the first half of 1891 there occurred 19 lamp explosions and 2 kerosene stove explosions with two fatalities. In the second half of the year, there were 74 lamp explosions and 6 stove explosions, with 9 lives lost.

November saw the greatest number of incidents. It is worth examining the roster of accidents in order to appreciate the frightening scale of the problem.

On the first of that month, a kerosene stove caused a fire in Lansing, and a Kalamazoo girl was burned while lighting a furnace. On the second of the month, a Kalamazoo man was burned while using kerosene to light a stove. Also on the second, an exploding lantern in Rockford caused a barn fire; the same happened in Corey. On November 5, a kerosene stove exploded in Ypsilanti, severely burning a woman.

The next day, a lamp exploded in Watertown township. On the 9th, two lamps exploded in Grass Lake, another exploded in Ithaca, and a Bay City boy was severely burned while trying to light a fire with kerosene. On the 11th, a lantern exploded in an Addison barn, causing a number of buildings to burn and causing $17,000 in damage [about $407,000 today]. On the same day, lamps exploded in Watertown Township and in Dushville, the latter causing the deaths of two children.

The month wasn’t even half over.

On the 12th, a Kalamazoo boy was severely burned while trying to light a furnace with kerosene. On the 19th, a lamp exploded in Albion. On the 22nd, a lamp exploded in Northfield, another exploded in Plainfield township and destroyed a barn and all its contents, and a third exploded in the Ann Arbor home of W. W. Douglas, burning his carpet and furniture.

It would be years before the state again adopted the more stringent closed cup test.

Kedzie continued to speak out over the years on the subject of kerosene adulteration at conventions and meetings of various associations around Michigan. Twenty-five years after his initial words in the Board of Health’s inaugural report, he gave a retrospective talk on the Board’s accomplishments at its quarter-centennial 1898 meeting in Detroit.

Kedzie singled out four major topics of concern and achievement for the board over the years: potable water, the draining of Michigan’s swamps, the architecture of schoolhouses, with a focus on the dangers of stairs to the anatomy of female students (a story for another day) and “the kerosene battle.”

“The headline ‘Another Kerosene Horror’ was seen in nearly every daily paper,” said Kedzie, “with sickening details of some poor woman roasted like a martyr at the stake, set on fire by a lamp explosion . . . [w]hen the Michigan Oil Tester adopted by the Board … were made the legal method of testing, and a State Oil Inspector [made] to have charge of this business, then the people found a safe light.” The struggle to ensure safe and universal testing, said Kedzie, was ongoing.

Kerosene Today

The UM grad’s legacy is preserved in current Michigan legislation. Modern-day purchasers of kerosene are protected by a law (Act 328 of 1931) that mandates that the fuel, whether made in Michigan or out of state, have a 100-degree flash point as tested by the closed cup tester that Kedzie championed. Violators can go to jail for up to 6 months, pay up to $750, or both.

This summer will feature thousands of Michiganders operating kerosene outboard motors (they do exist), cooking over kerosene camp stoves, and using kerosene lanterns, the safety of which devices is due in no small part to pioneering UM alum Robert Kedzie. His legacy burns brightly.

Mystery Artifact

This column’s Mystery Artifact is one that was recently brought into the Ypsilanti Archives by a visitor. Several of us there puzzled over it, but no one could figure it out.

Mystery Artifact

The legend says “BALL BEARING 5.”

The visitor took it over to the Automotive Museum and he got an answer. What do you think it is?

Laura Bien is the author of “Hidden History of Ypsilanti” and “Tales from the Ypsilanti Archives.” Look for her article on Coldwater School, a short version of which first appeared here, in the July/August issue of Michigan History Magazine. ypsidixit@gmail.com

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our columnists like Laura Bien and other contributors. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

WEMU's Andrew Cluley had questions about the budget for Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers after the April 16 council meeting. Image links to Cluley's report. (Photos by the writer.)

But Powers led off the presentation by explaining that Monday evening would not be a time for detailed discussion and questions about the budget. For details of that presentation, see Chronicle coverage: “Ann Arbor Council Gets Draft 2013 Budget.”

The budget presentation occurred Monday night because of a city charter requirement. It was Powers’ first such presentation – as he was hired by the council last year, and started the job in September. The city council will have until May 21, its second meeting in May, to modify and adopt the budget.

In terms of the sheer number of agenda items, the topic of zoning and land use was a main focus of the meeting. The council unanimously rejected a proposed conditional rezoning of 1320 S. University to a higher density than its current D2 (downtown interface) designation. But winning unanimous approval was a site plan for a Tim Hortons on South State Street, near Ellsworth. The council also gave initial approval to AAA Michigan for a rezoning request involving a parcel on South Main, which the auto club would like to have designated as P (parking). A half dozen different rezoning requests for parcels that had recently been annexed into the city also received initial approval.

Prompting considerable discussion among councilmembers were four resolutions concerning an environmental study on a possible extension of a runway at the Ann Arbor municipal airport. The resolutions all passed, but the main grant funding went through on just a 7-4 vote. The city was being asked for an additional $1,125 in matching funds to wrap up the final stages of an environmental assessment being done by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, which was already mostly completed two years ago.

Also related to transportation, the council authorized over $6 million in contracts related to street resurfacing projects. That included a second set of local streets (after having approved funding for the first set at its previous meeting) as well as the section of East Stadium Boulevard between Packard and Washtenaw. In connection with those infrastructure projects, the council also authorized contracts for materials testing.

In other action related to infrastructure, the council approved a $93,438 item for construction of unisex bathrooms in city hall – but not without questions about the scope of the overall municipal center renovation work.

On personnel-related items, the council gave final approval to legislation that incorporates provisions of the collectively bargained labor contracts with police command officers and firefighters into the city’s set of ordinances on retirement and health care.

As a result of other council action on Monday night, Ann Arbor police officers will be able to arrest and charge “super drunk” drivers who have more than 0.17 blood alcohol content – because the council modified the city’s ordinances to conform with recent changes in state law.

In other business, the council also authorized a contract with a new auditor, The Rehmann Group, set a hearing on a tax abatement for Sakti3, and imposed a temporary ban on digital billboards.

Highlights of public commentary included concerns about new DTE “smart meters” and localized flooding incidents in the city. The flooding was attributed by residents to the city’s layering of new asphalt onto an adjacent street, and to the city’s sanitary sewer disconnection program.

1320 S. University Rezoning

The council was asked to consider a request to conditionally rezone 1320 S. University – from D2 (downtown interface) to D1 (downtown core).

The magenta parcel and arrow indicate the 1320 S. University parcel proposed for conditional rezoning to a higher density use that's found in the dark brown (D1) areas to the west and north. The light brown area to the south and west is D2 (downtown interface). Light green is PL (public land). Yellow is R2B and dark purple is R4C – both residential zoning. (Image links to higher resolution image.)

The request included setting conditions on the D1 designation, such as restrictions on height and floor area that are less than what’s allowed in “unconditioned” D1. For example, the by-right height limit in D1 is 180 feet, but one condition the owner of the property – Philip Sotiroff – wanted to place on the property was a 145-foot height limit.

That 145-foot limit, however, is more than twice the limit of the parcel’s current D2 zoning, which allows buildings only as tall as 60 feet. Currently at the site – on the south side of South University, between Forest and Washtenaw avenues – is the three-story Park Plaza apartment building.

The site is adjacent to a D1 parcel to the east, where the Landmark apartment building is being constructed, at 601 S. Forest. But the 1320 S. University property also abuts lower-density residential zoning. Single-family homes are located to the south of the site, and a fraternity is located to the west.

The South University area was an intensely debated part of the A2D2 downtown rezoning initiative, which the city council finally ratified on Nov. 16, 2009 after more than two years of planning work. As part of that process, the city planning commission had initially recommended a zoning map that assigned D1 zoning to the 1320 S. University parcel. The city council subsequently drew the lines differently, which resulted in a D2 designation for the parcel, and sent the map back to the planning commission. The planning commission then revised some parts of its map, including the designation for 1320 S. University.

More recently, at its Feb. 7, 2012 meeting, planning commissioners voted unanimously not to recommend that 1320 S. University be rezoned from D2 to D1.

Council on S. University Rezoning: Public Hearing

Marc Gerstein introduced himself as a resident of Forest Court, and since 1982 the owner of a house that abuts the south boundary of a parking lot at the rear of 1320 S. University. He noted that any change in the zoning will affect him directly. He urged the council to follow the staff report and the unanimous recommendation of the city planning commission and to reject the request for conditional rezoning from D2 to D1.

He noted that the planning staff report finds that D2 was warranted for the parcel and was carefully considered by the city planning commission and the council. The staff had found there was no error in that decision. He noted there’d been no changes in the neighborhood since passage of A2D2 two years ago. To rezone the parcel now would strip away any buffer between the small residential houses and the 1320 S. University parcel. He concluded by asking the council to deny the petition for rezoning.

Council on S. University Rezoning: Council Deliberations

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who is the city council’s representative to the city planning commission, described the location of the parcel proposed to be rezoned. Two high-rise buildings stand to the west at South University and South Forest – University Towers on the northwest corner and the currently under-construction Landmark Building (formerly called the 601 S. Forest). To the east stands a fraternity house. Derezinski noted the A2D2 zoning ordinances had been adopted after considerable debate. The planning commission had unanimously agreed with the recommendation of the staff that the parcel not be rezoned, he said.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) also concurred that the prior community conversation had been rigorous and extensive and warrants the council’s respect.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) added that she felt having a buffer in the form of D2 zoning makes a great deal of sense.

Outcome: The council unanimously rejected the proposed conditional rezoning of 1320 S. University.

The city council’s vote was just its initial consideration of the request – a “first reading.” A rezoning request, like any ordinance change, requires initial approval, followed by a public hearing and a final vote at a subsequent meeting. Often, councilmembers will advance an ordinance change to a second reading, if they have not settled on a position and are interested in hearing the sentiments that might be expressed at a public hearing. So the fact that the council rejected the proposal on first reading can be taken as a measure of the council’s especially strong opposition to changing the zoning that was agreed on as part of the A2D2 process.

Tim Hortons Site Plan

On the April 16 agenda was a site plan for a new Tim Hortons restaurant at 3965 S. State St. The site plan had received a unanimous recommendation for approval by the Ann Arbor planning commission at its March 6, 2012 meeting. The site is located on the east side of the street, near the intersection of State and Ellsworth.

The plan calls for demolishing a vacant building on the 2.23-acre site where previous restaurants, including Enzo’s and Gallagher’s, were located. In its place, a one-story 1,953-square-foot restaurant with drive-thru facilities would be built on a 1.18-acre site divided from the current parcel. The building would face West Ellsworth and use an existing shared drive on South State, as well as a relocated drive onto West Ellsworth. An outdoor seating area is proposed on the east side of the building.

The property is zoned C3 (fringe commercial), which allows for construction of a drive-thru restaurant. The planning commission’s recommendation of approval was contingent on two issues: (1) submission of a tree health evaluation form, and (2) approval of the parcel’s land division, prior to the city issuing permits for construction of the new building.

Much of the discussion among planning commissioners at their meeting had focused on the proposed roundabout at State and Ellsworth. A spokesman for Tim Hortons said they’d found out about the roundabout plans late in the process, but were working to integrate their own plans to accommodate it. He indicated that if the company gets approval from the city, they hope to open in August. Construction for the roundabout is expected to begin in the spring of 2013, with completion in the fall of that year.

During council deliberations on April 16, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), the city council’s representative to the planning commission, made some brief remarks. He described it as a property that’s been vacant for a couple of years. It would be a great improvement, he said. The planning commission went through ingress and egress issues. Derezinski said he felt it adds value and would be a good place to get coffee in the morning.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the State Street corridor is currently undergoing a study. She wondered how this particular project fits into the ongoing discussions that the corridor study group has had. City planning manager Wendy Rampson told Briere that it doesn’t really fit into ongoing discussions on the corridor, but it does remove a relatively blighted building on the site. The corridor study has not gotten as far as making land use recommendations yet, Rampson said.

Responding to a question from mayor John Hieftje, Rampson said that the plan is to begin construction in May. Tim Hortons is moving in a timely way, she said. A land division needs to be completed before they can start, she said. And the Tim Hortons team is coordinating with the Washtenaw County team that is planning the roundabout at Ellsworth and State. She figured in a couple of months, construction might start.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the Tim Hortons site plan.

AAA Request for Parking Zoning

Before the council for its consideration was initial approval to a proposal from AAA Michigan to rezone half of a parcel located at 1200 S. Main to P (parking). To take effect, the initial approval from the city council would need to be followed by a second and final approval following a public hearing at a subsequent meeting.

The rezoning to P (parking) is part of a two-parcel site plan proposal – for which the city planning commission provided a positive recommendation at its March 6, 2012 meeting. At that meeting, the commission took two votes on the 1200 S. Main parcel – the site plan and the rezoning proposal. And on both votes, the planning commission split 6-3. For the other, adjacent parcel at 1100 S. Main, the city planning commission voted unanimously to recommend the site plan for approval.

In front of the city council on April 16, however, was just the resolution to rezone a portion of the 1200 S. Main parcel to P (parking).

The two parcels, at 1100 and 1200 S. Main, are across from Michigan Stadium. An AAA branch built in the 1950s is located there. The owner wants to build a new branch on a different part of the site, tear down the existing building, and reconfigure parking spaces.

The two parcels are part of a 1.5-acre site containing four parcels owned by the auto club and all zoned O (office). Located on the 1200 S. Main parcel is the current one-story branch building with walk-out basement and 36 parking spaces, with exits onto South Main, Berkley and Potter.

The 1100 S. Main site is a surface parking lot, which has 72 spaces and exits onto both Potter and Keech. The owner is requesting to build a one-story, 5,443-square-foot new branch building on the northeast corner of that site, with parking for 21 spaces. A second phase of the project would include an eventual 2,230-square-foot addition to the south side of that building. There are six landmark trees on the site, and the plan would require removal of two that are located along South Main, near Keech. Other trees would be added elsewhere on the site.

After the new structure is completed, the old building at 1200 S. Main would be torn down and a 14-space parking lot would be put on that parcel. And to do that, the proposal asks that the northern 123 feet of that parcel – about half of the parcel – be rezoned from O (office) to P (parking), so that parking could become the principal use for that site. A site plan for that parcel is also required. The rezoning to P (parking) is what the city council considered on April 16.

The owner’s overall plan called for a total of 35 spaces – a reduction from the current parking on the site, which was approved in the mid-1970s but no longer conforms with existing zoning. The 35 spaces would be four more spaces than the 31 maximum number permitted under the O (office) zoning, based on the new building’s square footage in both phases. That’s why the owner requested that a portion of the overall site be rezoned for parking – in the P (parking) district, there is no maximum.

AAA Request for Parking Zoning: Council Deliberations

City planning manager Wendy Rampson was asked to the podium to summarize the proposal, which she did. The current configuration has the AAA office sitting on the parcel to the south, with surface parking on the parcel to the north. She said the configuration was approved in the 1970s based on an interpretation that parking would be allowed on the northern parcel, based on the ownership by AAA of both parcels. The city does things differently now – if there’s no other use on a parcel besides parking, then the city requires that it be zoned P (parking).

Rampson described what AAA wants to do as a “flip flop” – build a new branch office on the northern parcel and put parking on the south parcel. It’s that south parcel that AAA wants rezoned. She noted that the city planning commission vote was 6-3 on rezoning. Staff also had some concerns about approving parking as a principle use, because that’s something the city is trying to get away from. The plan has a lot of benefits with respect to stormwater detention, she said, and reduces the amount of impervious surface across the two sites, as well as the total amount of parking.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said the site plan really did sell the proposal. The building that AAA is putting up is an improvement over the one that’s currently there. The old building has a lot of mileage on it, he said. With its location across from the University of Michigan football stadium, the building would be noticed by a large number of visitors to Ann Arbor, he said.

Rampson added that it’s a two-phase project. In the new building, AAA anticipates adding more services, so that’s the rationale for wanting to have parking available on both parcels.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said he felt like the project is a step in a better direction, but not what the city would want if the project were starting from scratch. He wondered what AAA’s plans would be if the council turned down the request to rezone. Rampson said she didn’t know. Before AAA brought forward their proposal, however, they’d gone over ways to solve the parking issue without rezoning. One possibility would be to retrofit the existing building. They also considered different configurations that would reduce the amount of parking. But ultimately AAA did not want to pursue those, she said.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked if there’d been given any consideration to moving the building further away from the sidewalk, and he wondered if AAA could be forced to comply with a greater setback requirement. Rampson reminded Anglin that the recent area, height and placement revisions had reduced the amount of setback required – which in this case allowed the building to be moved further way from the residential area to the west and closer to Main Street. Rampson also explained that the curbcuts to Main Street would be removed.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wanted to know what assurance the council would have that the old building will be torn down. Rampson explained that once it’s zoned P (parking), the building couldn’t be used for anything. And AAA is not intending to keep the building in place – the space is needed for parking.

Outcome: The council gave unanimous initial approval to the AAA Michigan rezoning request for 1200 S. Main.

Annexation Rezonings

The council was asked to consider initial approvals of six separate rezoning requests associated with annexation into the city of Ann Arbor from Scio Township. The zoning change in all cases is from the township to a residential category.

Five of the properties were annexed into the city on Oct. 3, 2011 – in connection with the expansion of a well-prohibition zone due to 1,4 dioxane groundwater contamination caused by the Pall Corp.’s Wagner Road facility, formerly owned by Gelman Sciences. Those five properties are: 305 Pinewood St.; 3225 Dexter Rd.; 427 Barber Ave.; 545 Allison Dr.; and 3249 Dexter Rd.

Annexation into the city allows the properties to connect to city of Ann Arbor water services. Pall has paid all petition filing fees as well as the connection and improvement charges for water and sanitary sewer service that are related to the annexations. The zoning for which the city council gave initial approval is for R1C (residential). [Google map of well prohibition zones and property locations] [.jpg of map with well prohibition zones and property locations]

A sixth parcel for which the council gave initial rezoning approval – also due to annexation, but not related to the well-prohibition zone – is located at 1575 Alexandra Blvd. The parcel was given initial approval to be rezoned from the township to R1A (residential) zoning.

As ordinance changes, all rezoning requests require an initial approval from the city council, followed by a public hearing and a final approval at a subsequent meeting.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) offered the only council comment on any of the annexation-related rezoning requests, noting that they all went from township zoning to single-family residential.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved all the annexation-related rezoning requests. The requests need to come back for a second and final approval by the council, after a public hearing.

Ann Arbor Airport Study

On April 16 the council considered four different resolutions in connection with Ann Arbor’s municipal airport, three of them connected to the completion of an environmental assessment of a proposed 800-foot lengthening of the airport runway.

The city council had initially authorized funding for the assessment project at its Feb. 2, 2009 meeting. The assessment began on May 4, 2009. The process appeared to culminate in a public hearing in April 2010. [See Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Airport Study Gets Public Hearing."] In the interim, city councilmembers have removed the runway extension from the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP) each year they’ve been asked to give the CIP its annual approval.

However, when the Federal Aviation Administration responded to the draft report, that prompted communication between the city of Ann Arbor and the FAA. And that back-and-forth has resulted in FAA requests for more work, which is meant to wrap up the environmental assessment (EA). From the staff memo accompanying one of the resolutions:

The FAA’s response was received nearly a year later (September, 2011). The remaining work on the EA includes modifications based on the FAA comments, coding public and agency comments and responses for the final EA document, preparation of the Errata and FONSI for submission to MDOT-Aero. There is about 2-3 months of work remaining to complete the EA.

One of the resolutions authorizes $800 for an additional map to be prepared by URS Corp., one of two consultants that the Michigan Dept. of Transportation is using for the project. The amount is covered by MDOT’s project contingency budget. This item is not specifically related to the environmental assessment.

A separate resolution authorized $12,000 of additional consulting work, also with URS. A third resolution authorized an additional $26,552 worth of consulting work from SmithGroupJJR. The additional work by URS and SmithGroupJJR is being covered by a $45,000 grant program, which consists of $42,750 in federal funds, $1,125 in state funds and $1,125 in airport matching funds (the city’s portion.) Authorization of the grant program was the fourth airport-related item on the agenda.

Ann Arbor Airport Study: Public Comment

During public comment, James Vincze introduced himself as a member and vice chair of the airport advisory committee. He urged the council to complete the airport runway extension study. It’s important to get the process completed, he said. Significant time and resources have already been spent and the public has been involved. Matt Kulhanek is a good airport manager, he said. Voting to complete the study doesn’t mean the council favors runway extension, he said. Rather, it means the council wants to get the facts out and have a complete study and analysis.

Ann Arbor Airport Study: Council Deliberations

Airport manager Matt Kulhanek was asked to the podium to answer questions. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) began by asking why the city is continuing to spend money to study the runway extension, when the council had consciously removed the extension from the city’s capital improvements plan. She had a hard time reconciling that, even though the amounts of money weren’t actually all that large.

Kulhanek pointed out that the first airport-related item on the agenda – the $800 for the map preparation – was not related to the environmental assessment.

So mayor John Hieftje then asked the council to vote on that item. And that vote was unanimous in favor.

Kulhanek noted that the council’s direction had been to get the facts on the proposed runway extension and that direction had come on two occasions, with votes to fund the environmental assessment. He said the council’s subsequent action to remove the runway extension from the capital improvements plan was based on a concern that by including it in the capital projects budget, it reflected a de facto support of actually doing the project. But at no time has the staff received direction to pull back from completing the environmental assessment. Kulhanek indicated that another grant agreement would be coming to the council later, after the one they were considering that evening.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) talks to Kathe Wunderlich (back to camera) before the council meeting. Wunderlich has worked as part of a citizens group opposing the runway extension.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked for clarification of the unexpected review by the FAA technical committee to which the staff memo had referred. Kulhanek explained that when the document was first entered into the system, the city was not expecting further FAA review. But two weeks ago, he said, the city received notification from FFA technical operations, a branch within the FAA, indicating that branch would need to sign off on it. The reason that technical operations would need to review it was due to two sets of navigational aids that would be relocated if the runway project moves forward. The document had already been given an 11-month review by the district office of the FAA, and the conclusion had initially been that the technical operations division didn’t need to review it. At that point, the city had the understanding the FAA was finished. That changed in the last two weeks, when city staff found out that FAA technical operations would need to review it.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked if the resolution that night was specifically for the relocation of navigational aids. No, replied Kulhanek. A resolution to approve another grant for that would come some time in the future. The grant before the council that night was to finish up the documentation of the environmental assessment and get it in a final format to submit to the FAA for review. What would come back to the council later is a reimbursement agreement for the work the FAA will have done to review the documentation.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) briefed Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) before the start of the meeting. They both voted against the grant funding for the environmental assessment of the airport runway extension.

Kunselman said he was confused why there’d be the need for another reimbursement agreement. Kulhanek reviewed the purpose of that night’s grant agreement.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) was up next to question Kulhanek and she apologized for putting him on the spot. His reply indicated he’d anticipated lots of questions: “That’s okay, I didn’t think I was going to get a pass tonight!”

In 2009, Briere said, the council had approved two grants and in 2010 the council had approved an additional grant. At the time, she said, she thought that the EA document was in draft form and almost complete. Kulhanek indicated that was not the case. The grant funding in 2009 had kicked off the project, he said. When the 2009 grants were approved, the city had also approved contracts with the two engineering firms.

Briere summarized what the council was considering as funding additional work by the engineering firms to get the EA document into shape to be submitted to the FAA. Kulhanek indicated that was basically right. The work the two firms would do would in essence finalize the document for everything except the FAA technical operations review. That review will have a specific scope – just the impact on the navigational aids.

Responding to a question from Briere, Kulhanek explained that the EA would cover more than just a discussion of navigational aids. It would include economic impacts, physical impacts, noise impacts, and wetlands impacts. There’s a whole variety of things that are included. It’s a broad document that includes public comment, as well as input from various agencies like the county road commission, county water resources commissioner and the like.

Briere said she had trouble understanding why an environmental assessment would take four years.

Hieftje asked if Kulhanek saw a benefit to the city and users of the airport, if the council does not want to go ahead with the runway extension, once the process is completed. Kulhanek told the mayor that he felt the biggest benefit would be to finishing what they’ve started back in 2009. The council would be able to make a decision based on an actual study of what the impacts are – not what our gut feels or our heart feels. A decision could be based on actual data and feedback from the public and various agencies and everyone involved. Kulhanek said there’s already been a lot of time and money invested in getting to this point in the project, and he thought it’s important to follow through to have solid information. If the council chooses not to go forward on the runway project, it can make that choice.

Mayor John Hieftje opposed the grant funding for completion of the environmental assessment for an extension of the Ann Arbor municipal airport.

Hieftje started adding up the money in the request. He asked Kulhanek how much more money would need to be spent – local as well as other money – to complete the project. Kulhanek said the first three grant agreements totaled $309,000.

The city’s share of that had been $7,725. From a local perspective, he said, that’s a minor cost. The grant agreement before the council that night was for $45,000 with a local share of $1,125. The next and last grant agreement will be around $30,000. The total for the EA would be around $385,000 with a local share of less than $10,000, Kulhanek said.

Kulhanek estimated that it would take the consultants another two months to do the additional work. He thought that three to six months from now, the last grant agreement would be back in front of the council for approval. Assuming three to four months for review, Kulhanek estimate that it would be early 2013 before the process was complete.

Hieftje asked again if there was some benefit to the environmental study, beyond knowing the impact of the runway extension. Kulhanek said it’s good information. Knowing the noise levels is useful. Knowing about bird species is also useful, he said. There are some mowing restrictions to protect their habitats.

Kunselman contended that everything Kulhanek had just mentioned as beneficial had already been done, so what the council was being asked to do was approve more money for consultants to wrap things up. He said the city continues to throw money at a project at the end. He said he’d vote no on everything. It’s taxpayer dollars, whether it’s local or federal. He said his constituents don’t want the runway extension and he’d vote no on that, too. The consultants can wrap it up without additional money, he said. He said he was done throwing money at this kind of thing.

Lumm said she’d been struggling with this. She allowed that it was a very small city share. Ultimately though, what the council would be doing is spending money on something that won’t move forward. She reiterated the fact that the council had removed the project from the CIP, which she translated into a decision that the council wouldn’t move forward. Kulhanek ventured that the council might be “wowed” by the EA and perhaps be open to the possibility of extending the runway.

Outcome: The main resolution, on the $45,000 grant, was approved on a 7-4 vote. Voting for a grant contract with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation were Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). Opposing it were Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and mayor John Hieftje. Both contracts with the consultants were opposed by Lumm and Kunselman. Hieftje joined them in opposing the contract with SmithGroupJJR.

Street Repair

The council was asked to consider two major contracts involving street resurfacing and reconstruction. One was a second large contract for street resurfacing work this season – $4,054,599 with Barrett Paving Materials Inc. At its previous meeting on April 2, 2012, the council had authorized a $3.6 million contract with Barrett for an initial set of streets to be resurfaced. The project includes a $405,000 contingency.

The second set of streets includes portions of the following: South Seventh Street, Mt. Pleasant Avenue, Park Drive, Mt. Vernon Avenue, Manhattan Drive, Meadowbrook Avenue, Martha Avenue, Palomar Drive, Catalina Avenue, Eton Court, South Forest Avenue, Vinewood Blvd., Dorset Road, Berkshire Road, Woodside Road, Londonderry Road, Tremmel Avenue, Page Court, Pine Valley Court, Esch Avenue, and Esch Court.

Also at the April 16 meeting, in connection with the regular street resurfacing program, the council considered a $143,455 contract with a different company, CTI and Associates Inc. (CTI), for construction materials testing services. The materials to be tested include oils, aggregates, asphalt, and concrete. Funds for the street resurfacing projects are drawn from the city’s street repair tax, which voters agreed to renew in November 2011 for another five years, through 2016.

Another road construction project on the agenda was a contract with Dan’s Excavating Inc. for $2,314,951 for replacement of two old water mains and resurfacing of the East Stadium Boulevard from Washtenaw Avenue to Packard Street. The total project is estimated to cost $3,600,000. Of that amount, $1,400,000 will come from the water fund capital budget and $2,200,000 will come from millage approved capital budget.

The East Stadium project will maintain the existing five lanes of vehicular traffic, and new bike lanes will be added on both sides of the street.

Also on the agenda was a materials testing contract for the East Stadium Boulevard project – $50,185 with Inspection Services Company Inc.

The only substantive discussion on the four items was on the materials testing. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked why the materials testing was being done. City project engineer Igor Kotlyar explained that such testing is always done for such projects. It’s a standard testing procedure, he said. Some of it involves making sure the proper materials are delivered to the site. But it also involves making sure that the materials are properly deployed as the project work is done.

For example, when a water main is backfilled with sand, it’s tested to make sure that the sand is compacted to the proper density. Gravel that’s put into the road bed is also tested for property compaction, Kotlyar explained. Homayoon Pirooz, head of project management for the city, responded to a question from Anglin by explaining that the city itself is not certified to perform that kind of testing, and does not have the certified equipment to do that. He indicated that it’s essentially a specialty.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the four resolutions involved with street resurfacing and reconstruction work.

Fire, Police Retirement/Health Changes

On the April 16 agenda was a resolution for final approval of changes to the employee retirement system to accommodate recent changes to the collective bargaining agreement with the city’s police command officers union and firefighters union. Also before the council was final approval to revisions of the retirement health care benefits to reflect changes to those collectively bargained agreements.

Changes to the retirement system include: (1) increasing the pension contribution of command officer members to 6% from 5%; (2) implementing a pick-up feature as permitted by the Internal Revenue Code for the pension contributions of firefighters and command officers, converting their 6% pre-tax contribution to a 6% post-tax contribution; (3) increasing the vesting and final average compensation requirements for firefighters hired after July 1, 2012; and (4) implementing a federal provision that allows eligible retired public safety officers to pay qualified health insurance premiums directly from their pensions.

The change to the retiree health care system stipulates that new hires after July 1, 2012 will be eligible for an access-only health care plan at the time of their retirement, instead of a city-paid retiree health care plan.

Fire, Police Retirement/Health Changes: Public Hearings

On the retirement changes for police command officers and fire personnel, Thomas Partridge questioned whether the public had been fully informed on the substance of the change. He felt that representatives of the police department and the union representatives involved in the contract negotiations should have been present to explain their side of the issue.

Edward Vielmetti flipped through the pages of the ordinance revision in the three-ring binder that holds the council agenda, and counted out the number of pages that had been red-lined as he flipped through them. When he got to 16, he did not continue counting, but noted that more than 16 pages of the ordinance have been amended. He stated that he had no idea how councilmembers could evaluate whether this is a good idea or a bad idea. He said that he himself (if he were a member of council) wouldn’t know what to do with a proposal like that. He hoped the city was making a wise choice.

On the retiree health care benefits, Partridge complained that Gov. Rick Snyder and former city administrator Roger Fraser [who now works for the state as an assistant state treasurer] are attempting to erode benefits to public employees, including those in high-risk jobs.

Fire, Police Retirement/Health Changes: Council Deliberations

On the retirement changes, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she believed the primary changes reflect the bargained-for benefits from recent union settlements. The city is taking advantage of IRS rules, she said.

On the retiree health care changes, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said that the changes to the ordinance were consistent with the changes to the access-only health plan that had been adopted by the command officers and firefighters.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the ordinance changes affecting retirement and health care benefits for police command officers and firefighters.

0.17 BAC as Separate Offense

The council considered final approval to a change in the city’s traffic ordinance to adopt a provision of the Michigan Vehicle Code – which establishes driving with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of more than 0.17 as a separate offense from operating under the influence. The council had given its initial approval to the ordinance change on April 2.

The Michigan legislature had previously changed the MVC, which Ann Arbor has adopted, to include the separate charge for the very high BAC of 0.17. However, the legislature did not at that time change the Home Rule Cities Act to allow cities to impose the greater penalty of 180 days in jail and/or $700 fine that comes with the BAC 0.17 charge. But in February 2012, the legislature amended the Home Rule Cities Act to allow for that penalty. Ann Arbor is making the change to its local ordinance in order to be able to charge drivers with the 0.17 offense.

Records from January 2010 through February 2012 provided to The Chronicle by CLEMIS (Courts and Law Enforcement Management Information System) show three instances of 0.17 offenses – which could not at the time be charged as a separate offense. The CLEMIS records for the same time period also show three reports for the moderately higher BAC level of .08, which could already be charged separately from operating under the influence. [.jpg of bar graph of OWI offenses]

As a change to the city’s ordinances, the change required a second vote and a public hearing (which is separate from the general public commentary held at the start of the meeting.)

0.17 BAC: Public Hearing

Edward Vielmetti led off the hearing by asking where a copy of the proposed changes to the ordinance might be found. Mayor John Hieftje told him it was available online or in a large three-ring binder near the podium – which Thomas Partridge had been perusing. Vielmetti then reviewed the ordinance change, while Partridge held forth.

Partridge began by complaining about Hieftje’s standard boilerplate recitation of the rules for public hearings, which include a provision that speakers confine their remarks to the topic of the public hearing. Partridge construes the rule as a way of inappropriately limiting free speech.

On the substance of the ordinance change, Partridge said it would have been better to attach a resolution that would stop people who are high on alcohol and drugs from driving or causing disruptive behavior in the city of Ann Arbor. He called for a parallel amendment to go forward, that would encourage and require all retailers and bars serving alcohol and supermarkets selling alcohol, to note the names and identity of people who purchase alcohol. He also called for bars to refuse service to patrons who have visited other bars before arriving, who are clearly under the influence of alcohol, and who intend to drive.

Based on his review – while Partridge was speaking – of the ordinance changes, Vielmetti said it appeared to him that the ordinance changes would increase the penalties for driving “super drunk.” He pointed out that there are a number of students in Ann Arbor who don’t just drive relatively drunk, but who also walk relatively drunk. And they may be so drunk that they pose a danger to others while driving, but also to themselves due to alcohol poisoning.

From reading the student press, Vielmetti said it’s his understanding that there’s a concern about prosecution for those who help their classmates who are trying to obtain treatment for alcohol poisoning – because they might be slapped with a “minor in possession” citation themselves. He cautioned the council not to overly hastily increase the penalties for drunken behavior, without also addressing the needs of those who need to receive treatment. It would be unfortunate to put yourself in a situation where you thought you were making an improvement, and then create some unintended consequences, he said – people driving themselves home, because they weren’t ready to help their friends walk themselves home.

0.17 BAC: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) alluded to Vielmetti’s comments during the public hearing, by saying she liked the idea of finding a solution for adolescents who are at risk of underage drinking violations. She felt the decision was straightforward. People who have 0.17 BAC should pay a heavier penalty, she said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked if the state law on 0.17 BAC was already in effect for people on University of Michigan property. Assistant city attorney Abigail Elias responded to the question by saying that for the “super drunk” provisions, which are for driving or operating a vehicle, the change to the ordinance simply brings it into conformity with the state law. If anyone were driving where the city did not have jurisdiction, she said, state law would apply.

Kunselman followed up by asking if UM’s department of public safety already has the authority to enforce the 0.17 BAC provisions on the Ann Arbor city streets. Elias told Kunselman that Ann Arbor police officers would enforce the law on city streets. She said she did not know if UM DPS officers were enforcing state law on city streets. That’s a question she could not answer, she said. Mayor John Hieftje said his understanding was that UM DPS officers have the ability to enforce laws on Ann Arbor city streets, but it’s unusual for them to do so. He stated that he’d be happy to see UM DPS join in helping out on the “party patrol” that the Ann Arbor police department uses to police student neighborhoods on evenings when parties are frequently held.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the 0.17 BAC ordinance change.

Selection of Auditor

The council was asked to consider a five-year contract for independent auditing work with The Rehmann Group – based on its $344,500 bid. The contract allows for two one-year extensions.

Abraham & Gaffney, the firm that the city has used for the last few years, also bid on the work. The Abraham & Gaffney bid came in at $387,500. Two other firms also bid for the city of Ann Arbor auditing work: Andrews, Hooper, Pavlik PLLC ($340,500); and Doeren Mayhew ($361,300).

Andrews, Hooper, Pavlik’s was the low bid, but the selection was not made purely on price. The amount of the bid counted for 30 points out of a possible 100. The other two categories were “expertise and experience” (40 points) and “auditing approach” (30 points). Rehmann and Abraham & Gaffney both scored the maximum 70 on the categories other than price. The memo accompanying the resolution indicates that the choice was also based on “a desire to periodically change service providers.” [.pdf of scoring metric and comments]

For Rehmann, then, the fact that it was not the incumbent firm was an advantage for the city auditing contract award. Last year, when it competed for the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s auditing contract, Rehmann had found its incumbent status to be a disadvantage. Because of the auditor rotation policy the AATA board had adopted on June 16, 2011, Rehmann was not eligible for selection when the AATA board opted to award the contract to Plante & Moran on Sept. 15, 2011.

Selection of Auditor: Council Deliberations

Margie Teall (Ward 4) introduced the resolution as chair of the audit committee, indicating that she was pleased that the audit committee had been asked to be a part of the selection and evaluation process. The audit committee had been pleased with the representative from Rehmann who had interviewed with the committee.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she supported the selection of Rehmann, saying that it was considered best practice to rotate auditors and that Rehmann is well respected. She asked about the notation in the evaluation of proposals that indicated Rehmann projected using 200 hours less than Abraham & Gaffney. She asked if the city is comfortable with that.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who also serves on the audit committee, noted that the auditor’s contract is a multi-year contract. The firm will need fewer hours as they get more familiar with the city’s auditing project over time.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the selection of The Rehmann Group as the city’s auditor.

Hearing on Sakti3 Tax Abatement

On the agenda was a resolution to set a public hearing for May 7 regarding a tax abatement for Sakti3 – an Ann Arbor-based battery technology spinoff from the University of Michigan. Sakti3 is led by UM professor Ann Marie Sastry.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, Sakti3 is requesting an abatement on $151,433 of real property improvements and $1,374,861 of new personal property. If approved, it would reduce Sakti3 Inc.’s annual tax bill by $23,200 for each of three years in the recommended abatement period. The new building improvements and personal property investments would generate about $29,500 in property taxes for each year during the abatement period.

Previously, the council voted on March 21, 2011 to set a public hearing on the establishment of the industrial development district under which Sakti3 is applying for an abatement. And on April 4, 2011, the city council voted to establish the district.

Outcome: Without comment, the council unanimously approved setting a May 7 public hearing on a tax abatement for Sakti3.

Digital Billboards

The council was asked to consider a 180-day moratorium on two items: (1) city staff consideration of applications to erect digital billboards; and (2) the erection of digital billboards.

Coming under the temporary moratoria are “billboards commonly referred to as ‘electronic message centers,’ ‘electronic message boards,’ ‘changeable electronic variable message signs,’ or any billboard containing LEDs, LCDs, plasma displays, or any similar technology to project an illuminated image that can be caused to move or change, or to appear to move or change, by a method other than physically removing and replacing the sign or its components, including by digital or electronic input.”

The resolution acknowledged that such signs are already prohibited by the city’s sign ordinance. From that ordinance, the list of prohibited signs include those that “…incorporate in any manner or are illuminated by any flashing or moving lights other than for conveyance of noncommercial information which requires periodic change.”

The resolution was added late to the agenda, after printed copies of the agenda were made for the council chamber audience. Based on the time stamp on the online agenda, the item appears to have been added at 6:48 p.m. – for the council meeting scheduled to start at 7 p.m. The item was sponsored by mayor John Hieftje.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she was confident there are some places for digital billboards in our lives, but she did not want to see them on crowded downtown Ann Arbor streets. Imposing a temporary moratorium on whether to allow them in the city limits made sense to her, she said.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said that many of the billboards in the city had 30-35 year leases on them, and it becomes complex to get them removed. He said that Adams Outdoor Advertising had been asking to “do trades” for many years. As issues for the public, Anglin identified distractibility while driving and “virtual vision pollution.” He gave the corner of Madison and Main, late at night, as an example. It looks like you’re coming into an entertainment area, he said, like vaudeville or something. He called for a community discussion about whether to have digital billboards. Do they bring value? he asked. He didn’t want to make the decision piecemeal.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the temporary 180-day moratorium on digital billboards.

Personal Computer Replacement

The council had on its agenda a $450,000 purchase order with Sehi Computer Products to cover the replacement of personal computers over the next two years.

Paul Fulton (right, foreground) is typically on hand before the council meetings start, to handle any computer issues councilmembers might have. On April 16, he was called to the podium during the meeting to explain the computer replacement cycle.

The project budget includes the purchase of a minimum of 305 desktops and 195 laptops. Funding for replacement of the city’s computers comes from the information technology services unit.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked for an explanation of the city’s replacement policy. Paul Fulton, the city’s IT service delivery manager, described how the replacement cycle for desktop machines and special-purpose laptops is five years. The replacement cycle for general purpose laptops is three years. About four years ago, he said, the city did a general refresh, and those machines are now coming due for replacement – a total of about 500 machines.

Outcome: The $450,000 purchase order with Sehi Computer Products was unanimously approved.

Biosolids Contract

The council considered a contract with BioTech Agronomics Inc. to spread biosolids from the wastewater treatment plant on agricultural fields – during April to December. The rest of the year, the material gets landfilled. The contract pays about $0.0321 per gallon, which works out to approximately $514,000 per year.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wanted to know where the material was going. Ed Sajewski, contract/project services manager for the wastewater treatment plant, explained that it would be spread on farm fields in the outlying area. He described the nutritive benefit – carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus – of applying the material to fields, as opposed to just landfilling it. Kunselman wondered if there were testing procedures to make sure no heavy metals were in the material. Yes, replied Sajewski, the city has a lab to do that testing, and it’s required to be done through the permit the city has with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the $514,000 contract for spreading of biosolids.

Mowing Contracts

The city council considered three contracts for mowing different city-owned properties – traffic islands, areas of the wastewater treatment plant, and neighborhood athletic fields: (1) Green-Vision Lawn & Landscaping ($105,336 for 3 years); (2) A2 Outdoors Creations ($43,275 for 3 years); and (3) KBK Landscaping for mowing and trimming services at neighborhood athletic fields and five city locations in the amount of $17,190/year ($51,570 for 3 years).

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said that people who drive into the city would have a right to complain if the city didn’t maintain the traffic islands. Logistically, she described it as a challenge to get the mower out to the locations and to then mow just five square yards.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked about the four parks that are a part of the contract – which parks? Matt Warba, acting field operations manager, told Kunselman the four are: Miller Nature Area, Forsythe, Kempf House and 875 S. Maple. Warba confirmed what Briere had said about the logistical challenge of mowing the areas covered in the contracts. He said there are 184 traffic islands. The city’s strength is mowing large areas of grass, not the small intricate areas like traffic islands or the areas around Kempf House, a museum located on South Division.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the mowing contracts.

City Hall Restrooms

Pulled out of the consent agenda by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) for separate consideration was a $93,438 contract with LC Construction LLC. The project involves the construction of five unisex restrooms, on floors 2-6, in the old elevator tower of city hall.

Before the council meeting, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) talked with city administrator Steve Powers (left).

Lumm was dissatisfied with the answer she’d received from staff before the meeting to a question about why the bathrooms had not been constructed as part of the overall municipal center renovation project.

She characterized the response she’d received as essentially, “We ran out of money.” She wanted all the costs for such projects captured in one place.

Otherwise, it’s hard to understand which costs are related to city hall renovation and which are not, she said.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the restroom construction contract.

Placid Way Park Improvements

Pulled out of the consent agenda by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) for separate consideration was a $79,980 contract with Michigan Recreational Construction Inc. for improvements to Placid Way Park. The contract – which involves installing new play equipment as well as park furniture and landscaping – had been recommended for approval by the city’s park advisory commission at their March 20, 2012 meeting. The 1.32-acre neighborhood park is located on the city’s north side near the larger Dhu Varren Woods Nature Area and Foxfire South Park.

In her brief remarks, Briere described Placid Way as an unusual park that runs between neighborhoods. It’s heavily-used by a neighborhood that has many children, she said. And it’s a pathway from one neighborhood to another. She was happy see the upgrades happening. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) who serves as one of two city council ex officio non-voting appointees to the park advisory commission, noted the discussion that PAC had had on the park.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the Placid Way Park renovation contract.

Technical Amendment to Retirement System

Before the council for its final consideration were some amendments to the city ordinance that governs the retirement system. The first change explicitly describes the process that’s already used to establish the interest rate in crediting participant contribution accounts. The second change corrects a language error introduced with an ordinance revision made last year, which misstates the methodology for calculating a participant’s early retirement benefit. The staff memo accompanying the council resolution indicates that the rates have been calculated correctly, despite the language error.

During the public hearing on the amendments, Edward Vielmetti introduced himself as a graduate of the University of Michigan’s economics department. He said he didn’t know very much about retirement planning. But he said he did know that projections for future returns are notoriously unreliable. In the past, retirement plans that made naive assumptions about future returns have had catastrophic surprises attached to them. He said he could speak to that from some of his own investments over the last 20 years.

Even portfolios that appear to be diversified usually are not, Vielmetti said. He urged the council to do something other than the simplest straight-line projection of future interest rates to project the range of possible outcomes – because a very good year or very bad year early in the cycle can make an enormous difference. Retirement planning is a serious business, he said, and he hoped the city is not taking an oversimplified approach.

Deliberations by the council included brief remarks from Jane Lumm (Ward 2), who characterized the amendments as technical changes that had been requested by the city attorney’s office. It’s not a change to the actual retirement plan, but rather a cleanup of some language, she said.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the technical changes to the retirement ordinance.

Communications and Comment

Every city council agenda contains multiple slots for city councilmembers and the city administrator to give updates or make announcements about issues that are coming before the city council. And every meeting typically includes public commentary on subjects not necessarily on the agenda.

Comm/Comm: Greenbelt

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) gave an update on the most recent greenbelt advisory commission – as the city council appointee to that body. He briefed his council colleagues on the mid-year financial report the group had received at its last meeting – there’s about $6 million left in the millage fund for greenbelt acquisitions, and $4.5 million that’s designated for park acquisitions. [For a more detailed look at the April 5, 2012 GAC meeting, see Chronicle coverage: "Greenbelt Commission Briefed on Food Hub," which includes details of the mid-year financial report.] Hohnke also highlighted a deal that the Southeast Michigan Land Conservancy had closed on 100 acres along Prospect Road, a large portion of which is open to the public. The deal was done in partnership with the Ann Arbor greenbelt program. [For coverage, see "Superior Greenway Deal Adds 100 Acres."]

Comm/Comm: Parks Millage

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) – in his capacity as one of two city council ex officio non-voting appointees to the city park advisory commission – reminded his colleagues of the remaining public outreach activity the city is doing on the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage renewal. [For coverage of the millage proposal, which the city council will likely put on the November 2012 ballot, see "Park Commission Briefed on Millage Renewal."] A public meeting on the renewal of the tax will be held on April 23 from 6:30-7:30 p.m. at Leslie Science and Nature Center. And the final meeting will be April 26 at the Ann Arbor District Library Traverwood branch, Taylor said.

Comm/Comm: UM Wall Street Parking

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported that earlier in the day, Jim Kosteva –University of Michigan director of community relations – had informed members of the Ann Arbor city council that UM’s board of regents would be voting on April 19 on a proposal to build a 700-space parking structure, to be located between Wall Street and Maiden Lane. [As expected, UM regents approved the project.]

By way of background, the university announced on Feb. 10, 2012 that it was withdrawing from a partnership with the city to build additional parking at the same site where the city hopes to build a transit station – just south of Fuller Road and north of East Medical Center Drive. The Fuller Road site, as a location for additional university parking, had been an alternative to constructing additional parking on Wall Street – which the UM was on course to build up until 2009. The news Briere was reporting, then, reflects the UM’s decision to revert to a previous course.

Since before she was first elected [in 2007], Briere said, other members of the city council, the mayor, and other residents had tried to convince regents that while additional parking might be necessary, it should be considered for a satellite location, not a residential street. She said some folks look at the barren parking lot that forms the block between Maiden Lane and Wall Street and say, “Well, who’d want to live there, anyway? Go ahead, shove in a parking structure.”

Briere said she’d rather have seen a much more serious effort on the part of UM to improve mass transit. She wanted to encourage the university to develop more aggressive carpooling and alternative transportation options for staff. She wanted to see the number of people reduced who feel that they need to be able to get into their car without walking or waiting. She wanted better consideration of the infrastructure and the environmental impact that the parking structure would have on the community.

For those who think that no one will care and that it’s all a wasteland, she asked them to remember, “It’s the university that created that wasteland, and the university that wants to make it increasingly inhospitable to the residents who live [there].” She asked the regents of the University of Michigan to remember that good neighbors work together. They could just as easily build parking structures on the north campus or the athletic campus, creating options for those who want to park there, and reducing the number of employees who choose to park and not ride [a play on the term for lots designed for people to arrive, park, then take public transportation to their final destination – called park-and-ride lots.]

Comm/Comm: Agenda Item Titles

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the length of the titles to agenda items had begun to creep longer and they were not getting clearer as a result. She asked that the 20-word rule on agenda item titles be followed.

By way of illustration, the following title appeared on that night’s agenda (137 words):

An Ordinance to Amend Sections 1:552.1, 1:561, 1:562, 1:565, 1:566, 1.567, 1:568, 1:572 and 1:592 of Chapter 18, Employees Retirement System, Title I of the Code of the City of Ann Arbor to Implement a “Pick-Up” Provision Allowed by Internal Revenue Code 414(h) for Members represented by the IAFF, Local 693 and the Command Officers Association, and Increase the Contribution Level for Members Represented by the Command Officers Association, and to Implement a HELPS provision for Eligible Retired Public Safety Officers, and to Implement an Other Qualified Adult Pop-Up Provision for Members represented by the Ann Arbor Police Officers Association, the Command Officers Association and AFSCME, and to Implement Other Collectively Bargained Changes for Members Represented by the IAFF, Local 693 (Ordinance No. ORD-12-10)

Comm/Comm: Medical Marijuana Dispensary Licenses

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) also told her colleagues that she’d listened to their requests at the council’s previous meeting, on April 2, 2012, that medical marijuana dispensary licenses be brought to the council for a vote. However, after further consultation with the city attorney, Stephen Postema, she reported that he’s said he would not be able to provide adequate background information to the council on the issue until June. She wanted to let her colleagues know that she had checked, and that Postema was not prepared to move as quickly as she was.

Comm/Comm: Blight Removal

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) reported that the city’s efforts at blight removal are working in his neighborhood, on Springbrook. He thanked everyone who supports blight removal and the city staff for making it happen.

Comm/Comm: Localized Flooding

During public commentary time, Ellen Fisher told the council she was speaking for herself and many of her neighbors in the Churchill Drive area. [It's an area on the west side of the city, east of I-94 and south of Scio Church Road.] She reminded councilmembers that some of them had heard from her before in letters she’d written. That night, she said she wanted to put a face to the message. She told the council that she and her husband had moved into their house on March 23, 1974 – 38 years ago. For 26 years, they had no problems, she reported. However, they’d experienced three localized floods in the neighborhood since 2000, two within the last two years.

Churchill Drive (highlighted in pink) was the subject of public commentary about localized flooding. It's located south of Scio Church Road and east of I-94. This screenshot is from the recent FEMA flood maps adopted by the city, which shows the floodplain (green) and floodway (blue) that exists in the neighborhood, but starting east of Churchill and extending eastward. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

She contended that three specific actions by the city of Ann Arbor were responsible for the flooding – which resulted in her home now serving as the “neighborhood detention pond.” First, she said, residential development had been allowed north of Scio Church Road, which caused additional water to flow into the Churchill Downs neighborhood during bad storms. Second, she said, in 1998 the roads in the neighborhood (Wiltshire and Churchill) were resurfaced. But instead of removing older pavement, she said, new asphalt was just laid on top of the old. As a result of laying down new asphalt on top of the old, she described the crown of the road now as above the curb, and the curb as only two inches high. So any time the water gets deeper than two inches on the road during a storm, it’s forced off the road into people’s houses.

The third city action, she said, was the footing drain disconnection program implemented after the floods of 2000. Since that time, the city has known that the stormwater system in the Churchill Downs area is inadequate, she said. But in 2009 homeowners there had to participate in the footing drain disconnect program.

By way of background, the program requires disconnection of a property’s footing drains to the sanitary sewer system, with a new connection made to the stormwater system. The move is meant to prevent the phenomenon of raw sewage backing up into people’s basements – due to overloading the sanitary system, which is not designed to deal with the volume of water associated with storms. Fisher’s contention is that the stormwater system in the neighborhood is also not adequate to handle the volume of water due to storms.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) as she listens to Ellen Fisher's public comment on localized flooding issues. To Higgins' right (in green shirt) is Margie Teall (Ward 4). Fisher was speaking about flooding in Ward 4.

Fisher continued by describing another flood just a month ago, and showed the council a photo of her house, which she described as an island surrounded by water – 5-6 inches. Storm drain covers were blown off, and geysers shot up five feet into the air, she reported. Water flowed into their basement through the egress windows and up from the sump that was installed through the footing drain disconnect program.

The city of Ann Arbor has attributed this to an “act of god,” she said. But she called the flood in her basement an “act of the city.” She called on the city to accept responsibility. In the short term, she called for the city to solve the problem of water entering the basement through the sump and to cover the cost of cleanup and mitigation. In the long term, she said, the city needs to address flooding in the neighborhood. She presented the council with a petition signed by several residents of the neighborhood, many of whom were in the audience at city council chambers.

Lowell Fisher, Ellen Fisher’s husband, spoke from his wheelchair. He told the council that the floods were taking an emotional and financial toll on him. The value of their home has plummeted, he said. They’re afraid to restore their basement – so they’re left with a basement they can’t use. Because he can’t visit all his children, they travel to visit him. They need their basement to host their children and grandchildren. Two years ago a flood cost them $20,000. But their claim for $5,000 in cleanup costs was denied. Nothing was done by the city to prevent another occurrence, he said. He stressed that the floods are not freak storms. There had been storms for the last 26 years prior to the occurrence of flooding problems. He concluded that it’s time for the city to take action. More than a dozen people stood in the audience to show support during Fisher’s remarks.

Comm/Comm: Smart Meters

Nanci Gerler alluded to a mayoral proclamation that led off the meeting, which established April 22, 2012 as Earth Day in Ann Arbor – the 42nd anniversary of the international observation of Earth Day, which was launched in Ann Arbor on March 10-14, 1970.

Gerler told the council she’d attended the first Earth Day and still has an Earth Day button somewhere in her house. She told the council she appreciated being a part of a community that values the environment and accessibility for those with disabilities. She warned the council that DTE’s smart meters had been introduced in Ann Arbor like a Trojan horse, using the guise of sustainability. Only recently had the meters been installed in Ann Arbor, she said, but other parts of the state had a longer experience with them. She told the council that 18 other municipalities have passed resolutions and moratoriums on smart meters, due to questions health safety and invasion of privacy, she said. Why not Ann Arbor? she wondered. Ann Arbor is usually progressive on such issues.

Gerler described how DTE is making no exceptions, and does not give consumers the right to opt out. She said that she’d been told by the Michigan Public Service Commission that if she refuses to allow installation, she could have her electricity shut off, even if she pays in a timely fashion. She offered to work with councilmembers to bring them up to speed on the issue. She asked councilmembers to help her get the message out.

Darren Schmidt introduced himself as the president and CEO of the Nutritional Healing Center of Ann Arbor. He described how the center helps people improve their health through nutrition. He said that a few years ago he became aware that some of the fatigue, memory loss, sleep disorders, and illnesses including Parkinson’s Disease could be attributed to “dirty electricity” and magnetic fields. [The council's agenda included a mayoral proclamation establishing April as Parkinson's Disease Awareness Month.] He showed the council a book titled “Dirty Electricity,” which that concluded electromagnetic frequencies and radio frequencies are the No. 1 cause of cancer in the U.S. He cited another book, titled “Zapped,” that provides ways to avoid electromagnetic pollution.

Schmidt said 3-5% of the population are extremely sensitive to magnetic fields and 35-50% are somewhat sensitive, but may not know it. Most doctors don’t know anything about this condition, he said. He had stumbled across it because his patients need the best care possible and they’re not constrained by pharmaceutical requirements. He also showed the council a letter from the American Academy of Environmental Medicine. The president-elect of that organization, he said, is Amy Dean, who’s a doctor of osteopathic medicine (D.O.) and based in Ann Arbor. The AAEM on April 12 released its position paper on electromagnetic fields and radio frequency health effects, and that paper had called for immediate caution on installation of “smart meters.” He compared installing “smart meters” in neighborhoods to “living in a microwave” that can’t be turned off.

Comm/Comm: Affordable Services for Most Vulnerable

Thomas Partridge called on the council to fund services for the most vulnerable – from disabled citizens, to senior citizens, to the middle class – those who need job opportunities and access to public transportation to get to those jobs. He called for the nomination of Barack Obama for re-election as president of the United States.

Present: Jane Lumm, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sandi Smith, Tony Derezinski, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Carsten Hohnke.

Next council meeting: Monday, May 7, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Before the Nov. 21 meeting, former councilmember Leslie Morris (left) might be reminding Jane Lumm (Ward 2) which ward Lumm represents on the Ann Arbor city council. (Photos by the writer.)

In the end, the council gave initial approval to an ordinance amendment that would temporarily reduce the required allocation to public art from city capital improvement projects – from 1% to 0.5% for a period of three years. After three years, the percentage would automatically revert to 1%. Of the various amendments to the ordinance, the percentage of the required allocation was the focus of the most controversy during council deliberations. A bid by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) to lower the percentage further to 0.25% gained little support.

Other art ordinance amendments given the council’s initial approval include a requirement that public art money be returned to its fund of origin after three years, if not encumbered by a specific art project. The amendment also included a definitional change that effectively excludes sidewalk repair from the public art ordinance. The amendments also addressed the general fund, making explicit the exclusion of general fund projects from the public art ordinance.

During deliberations, city staff confirmed that at least a portion of the public art allocation required from the new municipal building (aka the police/courts building) could be associated with the general fund – about $50,000 out of the $250,000. [This is for art in the interior of the building, and is separate from the outdoor fountain designed by German artist Herbert Dreiseitl.]

As part of her Ward 2 election campaign, Jane Lumm had argued that general fund dollars were connected to supporting public art at the new municipal building – an idea that had been, until Monday’s meeting, poo-pooed by some councilmembers, including mayor John Hieftje, who had said no general fund money had been used for the public art program.

Lumm was active in her first council meeting since serving in the 1990s. During deliberations on a revision to the ordinance on the city’s greenbelt boundaries, she prompted extended discussion on the part of the revision dealing with the boundary expansion. A less controversial part of the proposed revision involved allowing parcels adjacent to the boundary to be eligible for protection. In the end, the council gave initial approval to both parts of the greenbelt boundary change.

Also related to land use were two site plans on the agenda. The council gave initial approval to altering the University Bank site plan for its property at 2015 Washtenaw Ave., known as the Hoover Mansion. And the council signed off on the site plan, as well as the brownfield plan, for Arbor Hills Crossing, a proposed retail and office complex at Platt and Washtenaw.

Because the content of a proposed revision to the city’s littering and handbill law was not available to the public until late in the day Monday, just before the council met, the council postponed its consideration of that item. The ordinance amendment would allow residents to prevent delivery of unwanted newspapers to their homes by posting a notice on their front doors.

In other business, the council expressed its opposition to a bill pending in the Michigan legislature that would nullify an Ann Arbor ordinance on non-discrimination against people based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or student status. At the meeting, the council also authorized acceptance of several grants for the 15th District Court for programs on domestic violence and substance abuse.

In routine business for the first council meeting after newly elected councilmembers take office, the council elected Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) as mayor pro tem. Committee appointments and rule changes were postponed until Dec. 5.

Public Art Ordinance Amendment

The council was asked to give initial approval to a revision to the city’s public art ordinance that temporarily reduces the amount allocated from all capital project budgets to public art from 1% to 0.5%. Currently, the city has a law –enacted in 2007 – that requires 1% of all capital project budgets to include 1% for public art, with a limit of $250,000 per project.

The reduction in the allocation would apply for the next three years, from 2012-2015. The three-year timeframe is also a key part of a sunsetting amendment to funds accumulated under the proposed public art ordinance, which was also given initial approval on Monday night. That amendment requires that future funds reserved for public art under the ordinance must be allocated within three years. Money that is unspent or unallocated after three years must be returned to its fund of origin. However, an amendment offered from the floor and approved at Monday’s meeting makes it possible for the council to extend the deadline for successive periods, each extension for no more than six months.

The sunsetting clause comes in response to criticism about the pace at which public art has been acquired. More than $500,000 has accumulated for public art over the last five years, just from projects funded with the street repair tax – money that has yet to be spent on the acquisition of public art. Critics of the program also point to legal issues connected with the use of dedicated millage funds or fee-based utility funds for public art.

In addition to the temporary reduction from 1% to 0.5% and the sunsetting clause, the set of amendments before the council included a definition of capital improvement projects that excludes sidewalk repair from the ordinance requirement. Voters on Nov. 8 approved a new 0.125 mill tax that is supposed to allow the city to take over responsibility for the repair of sidewalks. Previously, sidewalk repair was paid for by adjacent property owners.

The amendments also excluded the ordinance from applying to any capital projects funded out of the general fund. Such projects are in any case rare.

As with all changes to city ordinances, the amendments to the public art ordinance will need a second approval from the council, following a public hearing. [Additional Chronicle coverage: "Council Preview: Public Art Ordinance"]

Art: Public Commentary

Brenda Oelbaum introduced herself as vice president of the Midwest Region of the Women’s Caucus for Art. She lives in Ward 2. Since moving to Ann Arbor 16 years ago, she contended that she’s seen a drop in support for the arts – except for 2007, when the percent for art ordinance was passed. She contended that the Ann Arbor Art Center has shrunk and that the annual art fairs are turning into dusty wastelands. Fairy doors, pig skins, and bike racks are not really public art, she said, while she’s heard that FestiFools is not going to be funded by the University of Michigan in the future. She stated that the city’s public art ordinance is the only way we can incorporate art into our lives.

Oelbaum told councilmembers they are being shortsighted by reducing the funding and requiring that the money be spent within a certain period of time. Art takes time, money and consideration. She described the Women’s Caucus for Art as a 40-year-old organization with 1,700 members. A group from that organization had recently taken a day-long tour of art in Nicollet Mall in Minneapolis. On the trip, she said, some of the women were lying on the ground taking rubbings of manhole covers. Art does a lot for the city’s standing in the state and the United States, she said. All you have to do is look at the Grand Rapids ArtPrize competition, she said.

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a resident of Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County, and a Democratic candidate for the state senate in 2010. He spoke to his usual themes of ending illegal forms of discrimination and providing affordable housing, transportation and education. He called on the council to stop funding unnecessary projects and called the Dreiseitl sculpture, funded with public art money, a “junkyard object.”

During the time set aside for public commentary at the end of the meeting, Partridge criticized the council for taking so much time to discuss public art, instead of giving priority to issues affecting seniors and disabled people.

Margaret Erickson introduced herself as a resident of Ann Arbor. She told the council she partakes in a variety of cultural events. One reason she chose to live in Ann Arbor 20 years ago was Ann Arbor’s accessible, rich cultural life. Works of public art provide a vital social fabric, she said, which allows us to see ourselves as a diverse culture. She told the council it’s easy to eliminate things that seem trivial, but Ann Arbor’s public art is a way of making the town beautiful. It also reinforces Ann Arbor’s connected community.

Margaret Parker said she’d served on Ann Arbor’s public art commission since 2004. [Although the public art ordinance was enacted in 2007, the city had a Commission on Art in Public Places (CAPP) before that time. The advisory group is now called the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission (AAPAC).]

Parker thanked the council for its support in the past. She recounted how $80,000 in private donations had been raised for public art for the parking structure at Washington & Fourth. The money had been raised by one volunteer. For the painted water tower on Plymouth Road, she said, $30,000 in private donations had been raised – by her. She had made the rounds to the same people who had donated to the parking structure and she’d heard the question: Why didn’t the city water fund pay for the water tower art?

Potential donors saw a disconnect between private funding and public benefit, she said. The city of Ann Arbor doesn’t have a revolving door of fresh donors like the University of Michigan does for the kind of art it has installed on its north campus. Funding for public art doesn’t raise the cost of any project, she contended. The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority has adopted the percent for art program, as has the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, she stated. She contended that the program is accepted as legal and has been used across the United States. She pointed to the one completed major project [the Dreiseitl water sculpture] and a smaller one in West Park. Six  more projects are in the works, she said. The commission also has plans to improve its procedures.

Wiltrud Simbuerger told the council that since she became a member of AAPAC this year, the feedback from the community has been positive. The desire and support for public art is there, she said. Criticism is based on the unspent money and speed at which art is created. She told the council that she is now responsible for the mural program. [Jeff Meyers, who had initiated the project, resigned from AAPAC in part due to frustration about the obstacles he encountered internal to the city in getting the project implemented.] She described the timeframe for creating a mural, which includes selecting possible sites and meeting with constituents in the neighborhood, she said. A letter of invitation has been sent out to mural artists and AAPAC will now select from a pool of artists.

Simbuerger allowed that the process could be improved structurally and there might be a point for some of the ordinance revisions the council was considering. But she encouraged the council to balance those changes with the needs of the program. She asked the council to increase city staff support for AAPAC and to empower the staff. It needs to be a staff-driven process, she said. Public art requires long-term commitment and persistence, so the focus should not just be on cutting the budget, but on making structural improvements to the process.

Connie Brown introduced herself as a long-time resident, business owner and AAPAC commissioner. She said she’s seen the positive role that public art can play in the community. She highlighted some of the things that AAPAC is doing. Currently, the commission is working on an interior piece for the lobby of the new municipal building. Proposals will be reviewed in December, she said. A statement of qualifications (SOQ) is ready for the Fuller Road Station project, but is not yet issued. When the University of Michigan and the city of Ann Arbor are ready to move ahead with that project, it will be sent out. Several projects are in the phase of task force work, she said – notably, public art for the bypass around Argo Dam and the East Stadium bridge reconstruction project.

Jan Barney Newman told the council she’d spoken to them once before when they were considering the ordinance. She’d addressed the council after she had been to Toledo to see an outdoor art exhibit – many people drove down from Ann Arbor just to see it. She noted that for the municipal center plaza, the city didn’t purchase “off the shelf” by buying an existing sculpture, but commissioned a thematically appropriate work. She drew a laugh from the audience as she struggled with the pronunciation of Dreiseitl, the name of the German artist who designed the fountain, rendering it as something that sounded frozen: drei-cicle.

Mark Tucker was dressed in a colorful outfit and said he was there to represent “art itself.” [Later in the meeting, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off the discussion by saying that the issue was not art itself, but rather the funding mechanism for public art.]

Margaret Parker and Mark Tucker before the Nov. 21 city council meeting started.

Tucker quoted the founder of the Heidelberg Project, Tyree Guyton, who responded when asked why he painted large polka dots on houses, “Why do you paint your house beige?” The conversation about public art always goes in the direction of cut, cut, cut, he said. Tucker does not think 1% for art is enough, and suggested the council think about 2%. He indicated that a “Miss 2%” would be appearing to show them what 2% for art looked like and asked that someone open the side door to the council chambers. When no one appeared, he said that he, for one, had wanted to see what 2% for art looked like.

Saying he was willing to demonstrate what 0.5% would look like, Tucker untied his necktie, indicating the demonstration would entail partially disrobing. He said it would be embarrassing for him and not pleasant for councilmembers. He asked councilmembers to consider what 0.25% or 0.125% would look like – saying that they all knew what zero percent looks like. He concluded that 1% percent is not too much to ask, to keep ourselves from being beige.

Elaine Sims, another AAPAC member, told the council she was glad didn’t have to follow anything that may have happened with Tucker’s demonstration. She said that in her day job, she also worked with art, as director of the University of Michigan Health System’s Gifts of Art program. She characterized the University of Michigan as a “small town” itself. She said she continuously gets calls from health care organizations across the country about the UM program.

Sims assured the council that the program did not happen overnight – it’s 25 years old. But it began as 3-year pilot program, she said. She gave the council some perspective on how long it takes to complete a commissioned piece of art, noting that she is a full-time staff member and that she has staff who report to her. Even with that level of staff support, she said, it takes a minimum of two years, more often than not three years from start to finish. She said that commissioners on AAPAC serve a staff function and that only recently has Aaron Seagraves been brought on board as public art administrator.

[At the city council's Nov. 14 working session, councilmembers heard a recommendation from public services area administrator Sue McCormick that would increase the value of the contract for the city’s public art administrator – by $35,000. The position is not held by a city employee. Currently that contract is with Aaron Seagraves, who took the job in May 2011. Previously, the part-time position had been vacant for almost a year, after Katherine Talcott, who was hired in early 2009, took the job of art project manager for the city. Seagraves currently has a one-year contract for 20 hours per week. At the Nov. 14 work session, McCormick characterized the proposed $35,000 increase to the contract as bringing it to essentially a full-time position.]

Art: Council Deliberations – Introduction

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off deliberations by noting that the council would see a different proposal from what they considered in September, but then postponed at the Sept. 19, 2011 meeting. Briere summarized the key features of the Nov. 21 proposal:

1. Routine repair of sidewalks would not be considered capital improvements, thus not trigger the requirement that 1% of those project budgets be set aside for public art.
2. The percentage required to be allocated to public art would be dropped from 1% to 0.5% for the next three years; after that time it would automatically revert to 1%.
3. After July 1, 2012, general fund money would no longer be eligible for inclusion in public art.
4. Funds that are pooled for public art would have three years to be allocated (not necessarily spent), otherwise that money would revert to the fund of origin.

By way of background, the key difference between the Nov. 21 proposal as compared to the Sept. 19 proposal was a political horse trade: a prohibition against using the street millage fund for public art was removed, in exchange for a reduction in the percentage from 1% to 0.5%.

Briere then implicitly refuted remarks made by Mark Tucker during public commentary, during which he stated that he was there to represent art itself. Briere said she wanted to make certain the council’s discussion separated out the funding issue from the love of art or public art. The discussion is about an effort to fund art, not public art itself, she said. She went on to say that public art is something many people embrace and endorse, but believe there are different ways to fund it. The city’s percent for art ordinance is a specific mechanism, she said.

Over the last four years, Briere said, enthusiasm for the program has lessened. A large number of capital improvement projects have been undertaken, she said, and people are a little surprised at the amount of dollars that has accumulated. Working with such large amounts is amazingly difficult for people to contemplate. AAPAC has had a difficult time getting organized, and has a lot on its plate, Briere said, and it took a long time for bylaws and policies and procedures to get developed.

Art: Council Deliberations – Lumm’s 0.25%

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) reiterated Briere’s point that the issue is not about public art. She took a different view of the trajectory of support for art in the community [from one of the public speakers]. She said she’d spent 10 years on the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair board and a number of years hanging out at the Ann Arbor Art Center. If it were not for community support, it would struggle. Alluding to Mark Tucker’s remarks during public commentary, Lumm said that an Ann Arbor art fair had actually brought some works from the Heidelberg Project works to Ann Arbor.

Lumm said it’s about the funding of art – private or public. She allowed that 1% doesn’t sound like a lot, but so far, over $2 million has been set aside for public art. Reducing the percentage from 1% to 0.25% would reduce the dollar amount per year set aside for art from around $450,000 to around $100,000. She said she still did not not agree with the idea of earmarking capital dollars for public art, but that $100,000 would be acceptable.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) responded to Lumm by saying: “You can’t have it both ways.” People say they want to have something but then don’t want to fund it, he said. He drew an analogy to the U.S. wars in Iraq or Vietnam. Derezinski noted that it’s the third time the council has wrestled with the issue. The community has been through some tough times, but “We’ve hung in there with 1%,” he said. He characterized the views that the council had heard as an “outpouring” of support for the public art program from the community. He said he could not go along with the idea of people saying they are for something but against funding it. Tough times, he said, bring out what the community is about. Ann Arbor is known for public art, he contended, so he was not in favor of decreasing the amount to 0.25% or to 0.5%.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) echoed Derezinski’s remarks, saying that it’s disingenuous to say you support something, but then not pay for it. If the council tempered its support, Teall said, it would send a message to private funders. She said she would not support a reduction to 0.25% or to 0.5%.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) took on the rhetorical gambit of Derezinski and Teall criticizing those who say they support something but won’t pay for it, by asking: “How often have my colleagues said, ‘We support public safety!’ but yet we’ve cut it?” The remark elicited a few cheers from the audience. Kunselman pointed to the $2.2 million that’s been transfered to public art and noted that much of it is still sitting there. He noted the council has made changes in other programs and services.

Kunselman pointed out that even though there was support from the public commentary podium for the public art ordinance, four of those who spoke are AAPAC commissioners. So, taking Teall’s label of “disingenuous,” Kunselman said it’s disingenuous to call that an outpouring of community support, as Derezinski had. Kunselman said during tough economic times, there’s too much money spent on art. He also questioned the legality of taking millage money that hasn’t been sanctioned at the state level or by the courts. He noted the absence of a written opinion from the city attorney’s office on the legal basis of the city’s ordinance. So he said he’d support the amendment.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said he’d heard the concerns about the amount of money the ordinance was generating. He agreed with Kunselman’s position that the council needed a written legal opinion from the city attorney. He said he was eager for a written opinion and said that the council should take a vote on that very soon. [Kunselman has taken the position that it should be up to the supporters of the public art ordinance to bring forward a resolution to direct the city attorney to produce an opinion.]

Anglin spoke about the role of art in defining what Ann Arbor is, saying that Ann Arbor is a unique little town. He noted that the discussion had centered on the visual arts, not the performing arts. He ventured that public art funding could eventually be expanded to include performing arts. He said he wanted to keep the 1%. People had been “shaken” by the process for creating the Dreiseitl sculpture, Anglin said. He found the whole procedure “jarring” – apparently because of the selection of a German artist for the commission. He seemed to indicate that the selection of Michigan workers for fabrication who could do good “metal work” was not entirely satisfactory.

In her next speaking turn, Teall picked up on Anglin’s reference to metal work, in order to clarify that the Dreiseitl piece is not simply a metal sculpture, saying that Herbert Dreiseitl is a “water and sculpture engineer.” She described the fountain as part of the stormwater system of the building, and said that it was fabricated using Michigan workers. It was not totally farmed out, she said.

In support of his position, Derezinski followed up with a description of an editorial that had been published in the Detroit Free Press [The column mentioned by Derezinski was by Ron Dzwonkowski: "Forget Taxes and Regulations, Michigan Must Build It so They'll Come"] Derezinski noted that Dzwonkowski’s column highlighted a book, “The Economics of Place,” which was published by the Ann Arbor-based Michigan Municipal League. From the column:

The book lays out eight assets that are critical to quality of place today, some reflecting a generational shift away from suburban living – suburbs are today the fastest-aging segment of the American demographic – and others reflect the relentless advance of technology.

They are walkability, green initiatives, a healthy arts/culture scene, a climate for entrepreneurs, multiculturalism, constant connectivity, effective public transit and educational institutions that serve as community anchors.

So is it any wonder that Ann Arbor weathered the Great Recession better than the rest of Michigan? Doesn’t it make sense that Grand Rapids has embraced the annual ArtPrize competition? Isn’t there a lot of promise in Detroit’s burgeoning Midtown?

[In contrast to Ann Arbor's public art program, Grand Rapids' ArtPrize competition is funded through private support. It's now a 501(c)(3) not for profit organization. See Chronicle coverage of the first year of ArtPrize: "In Search of Ann Arbor Artists: A Sojourn"]

Briere sought to steer the conversation back to Lumm’s proposed amendment from 0.5% down to 0.25%. Briere said it’s hard to say how much is enough support for art. She noted that she didn’t vote for the original ordinance, because she wasn’t on the city council at the time. She would have voted for it, she said. She had voted to reduce the percentage when the council considered its budget this year. She’d also supported the reduction when Sandi Smith (Ward 1) had brought forward a proposal in 2009 to reduce the percentage. There’s clearly an interest among some councilmembers to reduce the percentage, Briere said.

Briere said when she looked at other communities to learn more about how public art was funded, she learned that other communities restrict how you spend it, and where it comes from. Aside from the percentage, Ann Arbor’s ordinance doesn’t provide guidance that is helpful, she said. She’d asked to receive AAPAC’s guidelines and bylaws, but still hasn’t seen them. It would be helpful to see that information before the second vote on the ordinance, she said.

Alluding to Lumm’s estimate of how much the 0.25% would generate a year, Briere said she didn’t think that $100,000 a year is enough to buy art. She didn’t think you can acquire qualified, healthy, significant art for that much, so she wouldn’t support a further reduction to 0.25%.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) found themselves voting together as a two-person block on more than one occasion at the Nov. 21 meeting.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) began by noting sarcastically that he’d spent a lot of time reviewing all the 0.25% for art programs in the country – it didn’t take a lot of time because there weren’t that many. He said there’s a strong consensus for support for public art and some funding at some amount. In thinking about the appropriate amount that should be set aside for art, he cited a 1927 Department of the Post Office building in Washington D.C. for which 2% was set aside for art, and a National Archives building with a construction budget that allocated 4% for art. He continued by citing a federal general services administration policy in the 1950s of setting aside 1.5% for art, followed by city ordinances enacted in Philadelphia, then by the states of Hawaii and Washington in the early 1970s.

The 1% number offers a simple way to understand it, he said, that is sufficient to drive a large enough scale. He invited people to engage in a thought experiment. If your house burned down and the budget for rebuilding it is $100,000, the corresponding art budget of $250 (corresponding to Lumm’s 0.25%) doesn’t seem like a lot. Hohnke said that to him, 1% feels closer to the right amount, so he would not support a further reduction to 0.25%.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) noted that she had twice before supported a reduction in funding. She said she thought it would be prudent to do that now – when things are financially tight. Using Hohnke’s analogy of a house, she said when she needed a new roof, she’s not looking to put a new carpet down too. She said that deciding the amount is a little premature, before deciding whether the program even continues. She said she would not support the reduction from 1% to 0.5%, because it’s muddying the waters.

Outcome on Lumm’s amendment: The council rejected the amendment to drop funding to 0.25%, on the proposal cutting public art funding from 1% to 0.5% – only Lumm and Kunselman supported the amendment.

Art: Council Deliberations – Lumm’s Conscious Restoration

A second amendment to the proposal the council was considering also came from Jane Lumm (Ward 2). As proposed by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), the ordinance revision would automatically revert the percentage to 1% after three years. Lumm wanted to tweak that so that a conscious action of the council would be required in order to bring the percentage back up to 1%.

Mayor John Hieftje said he had been reassured by the provision of an automatic return to 1%. He was willing to advance the proposal to a second reading if the 1% were restored after three years. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) called the automatic restoration of the 1% level a useful tool for legislation like this.

Briere said that in her mind, the restoration of the funding level to 1% after three years went hand-in-hand with the other provision that would revert money to its fund of origin if it was not spent after three years. It’s easy to forget that something is going to happen. If in three years, funds have to be reverted to their funds of origin, she said, the council would hear from AAPAC about it. “That’s our trigger,” she said. Restoring the funding automatically after three years, Briere said, made sense to her.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) expressed agreement with Briere, adding that one reason it’s hard to keep track of things regarding the public art program is that there is not a full-time city staff member to keep track of it.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said he was looking forward to the discussion about what level of funding is appropriate. He said he would feel more comfortable with the reduction to 0.5% if there were the “backstop” of automatic restoration – although he was clear that he felt 1% is the right amount of funding for public art.

Outcome on Lumm’s proposed elimination of automatic restoration after three years: The council rejected the amendment on the proposal that made any restoration of funding from 0.5% back to 1% contingent on city council action. Only Lumm and Kunselman supported it.

Art: Council Deliberations – General Fund

Christoper Taylor (Ward 3) contrasted the fact of the deep importance of art to the community and the fact that money is tight. AAPAC has done yeoman’s work with insufficient resources, he said. But he pointed to the art fund as “flush” – there’s more money in it than AAPAC can process, given their resources, he said.

Taylor felt the situation calls for a practical, not a pure solution. There’s more money than we know what to do with – so the practical solution is to be in favor of the reduction to 0.5%, he said. This would reduce the pipeline, but also increase the outflow, and he anticipated the time at which the “pig in the python” comes through. Taylor allowed that he was borrowing a metaphor from another debate. [The allusion was to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority's expected bond payments on the underground parking garage.] Taylor said he would support the proposed temporary reduction on its first reading, stressing it’s particularly important that the council address the issue in measured fashion.

In his remarks, Taylor alluded to the position that some councilmembers have taken on the possible connection between public art and public safety, which essentially is this: The absence of the general fund in any of the city’s accounting for public art translates to a factual matter that the city’s public safety services, paid for from the general fund, are not impacted by the public art ordinance.

Mayor John Hieftje picked up on Taylor’s remarks about the general fund, saying that none of the data presented to the council had ever shown general fund money spent on public art.

Later during deliberations, Margie Teall (Ward 4) asked public services area administrator Sue McCormick to approach the podium to lay out in more detail what the connection of the general fund money is, as well as other funds, to public art. Teall was prompted to ask McCormick to the podium, when Jane Lumm (Ward 2) reiterated the piece of her successful election campaign that asserted a specific connection between the general fund and the funding of a particular art project – the interior pieces that are being commissioned for the new municipal center.

Lumm said noted that there’s a $250,000 contribution from the municipal building fund, which itself was created out of general fund dollars. Based on that, she said, “I see general fund dollars in this.”

Hieftje responded to Lumm by saying that he’d asked CFO Tom Crawford to look at the situation.

It was at that point that Teall asked McCormick to give some clarity to the general fund issue, and also asked her to explain why spending public art money is tied to its fund of origin. McCormick took the second part of Teall’s question first. She explained that it’s because there’s a restriction on uses of those funds – they have to be used for the benefit of the fund’s purpose, or serve the purpose of the fund. Included in the qualifying uses, said McCormick, are those that serve the educational purpose of the fund. It has to be a capital project, she said, with an expected lifetime of at least a year, and must cost at least $5,000.

As for the general fund, said McCormick, on its face, no general fund dollars are used for public art. But she said Crawford had been asked how the municipal building fund was set up. Before continuing, she clarified that once the money goes into a fund like that, there’s not continued monitoring of the relationship between the dollars as they’re spent and where they came from. The municipal building fund had hit the $250,000 public art ordinance cap, so in order to connect that $250,000 to some fund of origin, it would need to be apportioned out – which is not an analysis the city would ordinarily do, she said.

But McCormick concluded by saying that $50,000 out of the $250,000 could be associated with the general fund. She concluded that it was possible to construe that relationship to the general fund. Currently, she said, $40,000 out of the $250,000 has been spent, and the project for the lobby is expected to cost $160,000, for a total of $200,000.

Hieftje called McCormick’s description “reasonable.”

Art: Council Deliberations – Teall’s Shortened Time Period

Margie Teall (Ward 4) offered an amendment to the proposal before the council. Teall’s amendment would shorten the period of the temporary reduction (from 1% to 0.5%) to just two years. After two years, it could be reviewed to see where the need is, she said. She rejected the phrasing of Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) earlier in the deliberations to the effect that AAPAC has more money than it knows what to do with – she said she thinks the public art commission knows what to do with it. Commissioners’ challenge is to go through all the steps without administrative support. A reduction of two years is “fairer,” she said.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) described Teall’s amendment as making something that is bad less bad. This kind of reduction sends a signal about the stability of the funding. He agreed with returning the funding amount in a quicker time.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) reiterated the same objection she’d made to an earlier amendment, saying that to her, the amendment muddies the waters. She said that before the second reading of the ordinance, she wanted to see the city’s capital improvement plan (CIP) for two years and three years, and at different percentages. Then it would be possible to know what real dollars they’re talking about, she said. Right now, Smith added, “We’re shooting in the dark.”

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) agreed with Smith’s suggestion to get additional information, but noted that currently the ordinance is yielding $450,000 a year, and to date only around $860,000 has been spent. There’s quite a bit of capital sitting there, she said. A reduction for three years is not unreasonable, she said.

Outcome on Teall’s amendment shortening the period of reduced funding: The council rejected the amendment, which would have shortened the period of reduced funding from three years to two years. Voting for it were Derezinski, Teall and Hohnke.

Art: Council Deliberations – Council Extension of Deadline

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) proposed an amendment that dealt with the proposal to require that unallocated money set aside for public art be returned to its fund of origin, if not assigned to some specific art project after three years. Derezinski wanted to allow for the city council to extend past the three-year deadline for up to two years on a case-by-case basis.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she was not in favor of Derezinski’s proposed amendment. Some back-and-forth unfolded between Higgins and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) about the status of funds that have already accumulated in the public art fund. Briere said that her proposal had been “clumsily drafted,” and was intended to be forward-looking not backward. That is to say, the three-year sunset would not apply to existing funds that had already accumulated.

After a recess of the council meeting, Briere came back with revised language to make the timing clear, as well as the status of the funds – they didn’t need to be spent, just “encumbered.”

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) questioned the intent of the language. Briere told her the idea was to look forward, not back.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) questioned the need for language giving the council the authority to extend the timeframe by two years. Can’t the council simply grant the extension, if that’s its desire? Assistant city attorney Abigail Elias clarified that the council can’t change an ordinance by resolution. So the ordinance language itself provides the option for the council to extend the deadline by passing a resolution.

Mayor John Hieftje indicated a preference for a series of 6-12 month extensions instead of two years. Councilmembers seemed concerned about dealing with a situation where a project was in the works, but delayed, so that the public art money would not be spent within three years, as required under the proposal. Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she would support Derezinski’s amendment if it were restricted to up to two years. Derezinski indicated this was, in fact, his intent. Hieftje chimed in that his own method wouldn’t have put a maximum timeframe.

Higgins drew an analogy to the purchase option agreement made with Village Green for the First and Washington parcel – the purchase option was extended by the council several times. She said she was in favor of allowing up to two years, then at the two-year mark, an extension should be considered in six-month increments.

Briere declared that she was confused: If a public art project were proposed and in the works, that would encumber the money. And the sunset clause makes explicit reference to that. If a project is ongoing but delayed, it doesn’t need to come back to the council, because the project is ongoing and has encumbered the funds, she said.

Higgins wanted to know what would happen if funds were encumbered for three years, but then the project fell through. Elias characterized it more as a finance issue. She ventured that she could take a look at the accounting.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) wanted some clarity on how funds might come to be encumbered – is that a legal or a financial question? He suggested that the encumbrance comes close to the end when contractors come into the picture and exact costs are calculated.

After some back and forth, councilmembers then settled on a series of six-month extensions that the council would be able to grant. In relevant part, the revised ordinance as eventually given initial approval by the council read:

(4) Funds for public art that are placed in a pooled public art fund after July 1, 2012 that have not been disbursed or encumbered for an art project for three (3) full fiscal years shall be returned to the fund of origination, provided that Council may extend the foregoing period by resolution for successive periods, each not to exceed six (6) months.

Outcome on Derezinski’s amendment to allow city council extension of the time period by which funds must be encumbered: The council approved the amendment, with dissent from Lumm and Kunselman.

Art: Council Deliberations – Eliminate Reduction

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) allowed that many of the changes in the proposal to amend the percent for art ordinance were helpful. He wanted, however, to have a discussion on the percent. He proposed an amendment to the proposal that would eliminate the reduction from 1% to 0.5%.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) before the Nov. 21 council meeting started.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he wouldn’t support that. He acknowledged that there was some desire to support art, but noted that it’s not the “one percent for art fund,” but rather it’s the “percent for art fund.”

Spending the funds will be hard, Kunselman said, because there’s no guidance. You have to go back to the city attorney’s office to find out if a specific project can be funded – he noted he’d brought this issue up many times. The city can’t have a program run on verbal assertions, he said. He wondered what the public art fund could be used for: Performance art? Pavement decorations? Manhole covers? He’d like to see decorative art light fixtures installed up in the Oxford neighborhood, where students have expressed concerns about safety.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) stated that he assumed Ann Arbor wants to be an art center for the state of Michigan. So it’s important to keep the public art program healthy. There’s a lot of subjectivity in art, but AAPAC has some very devoted people. He said he’d attended three meetings since being appointed to the commission. The commission has come up with good recommendations for improving their own procedures, he said. The program is just about to flower, he added, so the council shouldn’t nip it in the bud.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she agreed with Hohnke and Derezinski. She described the percent for art program as just getting off the ground, and to reduce its funding would mean cutting it off at its knees. Responding to Kunselman’s call for decorative street lights, she said nothing prevents the city from using public art funds in that way. What’s holding the commission back is a lack of administrative staff support. She noted that the commission is a volunteer organization. The way to make public art happen is to support it with one percent, she said.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he believes that AAPAC was given an unfair and unachievable task – commissioners have done important and valuable work. In the future, that work should be given more staff support. But the fund is currently flush, he noted, and they’ll be able to use the already aggregated money and use the additional 0.5% allocation. He said you prune a lilac bush to prevent it from getting too leggy. The temporary reduction would allow the public art program to be a fuller, more efficient program.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she liked Taylor’s metaphor, adding her own version: You prune a bush to make it bloom better.

Mayor John Hieftje said a lot of people talk about the tradition of art, and contended that when you read about the history of public art, it’s about economic development. Ann Arbor lives on the fact that it has a high quality of life, he said. He talked about the speech he gave at the dedication ceremony of the Dreiseitl sculpture, in which he’d quoted from an article in Forbes magazine that called public art economically viable.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked Briere for bringing the proposal forward. She said she would support the 0.5%, not Hohnke’s attempt to eliminate the temporary reduction. On the whole question of earmarking capital dollars for art, she said she would feel differently if it had been put to a vote of the residents.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) observed that the existence of the program enjoyed overwhelming support at the podium and in emails she received. And she noted that the proposed revision would preserve the program.

Hohnke concluded that the council’s discussion had been really useful. He said the proposal included a lot of improvements, excepting the reduction from 1% to 0.5%. He saw a lot of signposts that point towards 1% as the right amount.

Outcome on the elimination of the reduction to 0.5%: The amendment that would have eliminated the reduction from 1% to 0.5% failed, with support only from Derezinski, Teall, Hohnke and Anglin.

Art: Council Deliberations – Finale

Mayor John Hieftje said he would support the measure for its initial vote and looked forward to its second reading before the council.

By way of background, councilmembers are not required to vote the same way on issues at their first and second readings. During deliberations on Nov. 21, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) voted for the ordinance revision on first reading, even though he argued against its main feature and attempted to amend it out – the temporary reduction from 1% to 0.5%. In the past, Hohnke, as well as other councilmembers, have made it clear that their votes for a measure on first reading are in the spirit of moving the proposal along to a second reading, when a public hearing is also held.

At the council’s Dec. 21, 2009 meeting, enough councilmembers flipped their votes between the first and second reading that a proposed reduction to the percentage public art allocation ultimately failed, after having won initial approval.

Outcome: The council voted to give initial approval to the temporary reduction (for three years) of the percentage specified in the public art ordinance – from 1% to 0.5%, with an automatic reversion to the 1% level after three years, as well as other changes to the ordinance. The changes would not take effect until after a public hearing and a successful second vote by the council. Dissenting were Derezinski, Teall and Anglin.

Greenbelt Boundary Expansion

On the agenda for consideration was a resolution to change the boundaries for the city’s greenbelt program – an open space preservation effort funded by a 30-year, 0.5 mill tax approved by voters in 2003.

Greenbelt Boundary: Background

During a presentation to the city council at the start of the meeting, Dan Ezekiel, chair of the greenbelt advisory council, gave the council an overview of the program and the proposal they would be considering later in their meeting.

The area in and around Ann Arbor that’s eligible for land preservation under the greenbelt program is defined in Chapter 42 of the Ann Arbor city code. The council has expanded the boundaries once before, in 2007. The current proposal is essentially to square-off the area by adding a mile to the southwest in Lodi Township, and one mile to the northeast in Salem Township. [.jpg of map by The Chronicle showing original boundaries, the 2007 expansion and the currently proposed expansion]

The brightest green region of the map is the original 2003 boundary area for properties eligible for protection using greenbelt millage funds. Next brightest is the area added in 2007. The dimmest green (in the southwest and northeast part of the map) is the area now proposed to be added. (Image links to higher resolution .jpg)

Also before the council as part of the amendment to Chapter 42, the council was asked to give initial approval to a change that allows a parcel of land adjacent to the greenbelt boundary to be eligible for protection, if it is also adjacent to a parcel under the same ownership within the greenbelt boundary. The greenbelt advisory commission had voted to recommend the ordinance changes at its Sept. 14, 2011 meeting.

Since the start of the greenbelt program, roughly $18 million has been invested by the city of Ann Arbor in protecting open space. That has been matched by roughly $19 million from other sources, including the federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program, surrounding townships, Washtenaw County and landowner donations. That funding has protected roughly 3,200 acres in 27 separate transactions.

Also before the council for its approval at the Nov. 21 meeting was the appointment of Shannon Brines to the greenbelt advisory commission. The current commission had recommended his appointment at its Oct. 12, 2011 meeting.

Greenbelt Boundary: Public Comment

Keri Hardy introduced herself as the manager of Cherry Republic’s Ann Arbor store on Main Street, and said she was there on behalf of the owner. Cherry Republic exclusively sells cherries and has chosen to have a store in Ann Arbor, because Ann Arbor matches Cherry Republic’s commitment to supporting Michigan and Michigan farming, she said. She presented a $2,500 donation from Cherry Republic to the Ann Arbor greenbelt program.

Greenbelt Boundary: Council Deliberations

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), who serves as the city council appointee on the greenbelt advisory commission, put forward the boundary expansion resolution. He described the proposed changes as smoothing out the boundaries that had been enacted as part of the 2007 change. The boundary changes are proposed to take advantage of opportunities for land protection in the expanded area.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) led off debate by making a motion to divide the question, noting that there were two items incorporated in the proposal before the council – one was an expansion of the boundaries, and the other involved allowing properties adjacent to the boundary to be eligible under certain conditions. She said she supported the adjacency condition, but did not support expanding the boundary.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) stated that “dividing the question” was a procedure with which he was not familiar.

By way of background, dividing the question is a standard parliamentary procedure that allows for separate votes to be taken on parts of a proposal. In response to a motion like Lumm’s to divide the question, the presiding officer at the meeting is supposed to ask for a seconding motion, and if there is one, to call for a vote, without debate on dividing the question. Once approved by a majority vote, the question is treated part-by-part as two separate questions before the council.

That’s not what happened in response to Lumm’s motion. Besides Taylor’s interjection about his lack of familiarity with dividing the question, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) complained that the text of the original ordinance was not included in the council’s meeting information packet, and that led to additional uncertainty.

Higgins wondered if a postponement might be in order.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) expressed concern about the possible continued expansion of the greenbelt boundaries. Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) is seated to her left.

Ginny Trocchio – a staff member of the Conservation Fund, which is the consultant the city uses to help manage the millage proceeds – was called to the podium to comment on any negative impact that might arise from a postponement.

Trocchio and Dan Ezekiel indicated to the council that with the uncertainty in the federal budget, the next round of funding – in February 2012 – might be the last one for the federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program. For properties that would be eligible for FRPP grants only as a result of the ordinance change, it would leave a short timeline to apply.

Mayor John Hieftje expressed some apparent confusion, wondering what Lumm wanted to amend. She explained that she just meant to be dividing the question. Hieftje indicated he wanted Lumm to take the approach of offering an amendment instead, saying that it was “neater” to do it that way. Lumm complied by amending the proposal to strike the boundary expansion.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he was initially opposed to expanding the boundaries, but after talking to Ezekiel, he felt it boiled down to the intent of the voters, which he felt was generally to create a greenbelt around the city.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) got clarification that Ann Arbor might get greater cooperation from Salem and Lodi townships as a result of the boundary change. Hohnke described how the boundary change in 2007 did not include Salem and Lodi townships because up to that point there had been little collaboration offered by those townships – but that has changed, he said.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) called the greenbelt a successful program and said the proposed expansion is a mark of that. Adding 10 square miles is an open door to more opportunities. Hohnke noted that the expanded area would make up about 6% of the total greenbelt area. Since 2003, he said, the cost per acre of protecting land has come down by half.

Higgins said she struggled with the expansion. One of the things presented to voters in 2003 was a map, she said. When voters saw that, they didn’t necessarily think the area would continue to expand. Back in 2003, she said, Ann Arbor was ahead of the curve. But now other organizations have come forward, and Ann Arbor is not the only player in the game. So she said she had some issues expanding again.

Higgins noted that Lodi Township was very excited about the prospect of the boundary expansion – but she attributed that excitement to the fact that Lodi makes only a token contribution. Ann Arbor will be the bigger contributor, she said.

Lumm said that at the time of the millage vote, a robust discussion had established the boundaries, and the community had talked about how the millage proceeds would be spent. She noted that the proposal now is the second expansion – she realized it was not a huge expansion, and thanked Hohnke for coming forward with a smaller expansion than others might have wanted. She questioned, though, whether the city is being driven by the desire to spend all the money in the program or to spend it wisely.

She characterized the money spent to date as having been spent wisely. But she noted the current fund balance is around $10 million – it’s hard not to say it’s flush with cash. It made her wonder if the city is spending it because it’s there. She stated she would not support the expansion at the first reading.

Higgins asked Ezekiel to the podium again and asked if it was possible to “lock in” the boundaries so that they would remain in place for some number of years. Ezekiel told her that the city council can choose to lock in whatever they choose – GAC is an advisory commission. He clarified for Higgins – who had complained that perhaps townships had not contributed much to some of the deals – that it has never been the case that the city is the only contributor. It’s required, he said, to have at least 20% from other sources. Higgins countered that the 20% isn’t necessarily from other local entities, which Ezekiel confirmed. He confirmed for Higgins that the city has done deals where the city of Ann Arbor has been the only local participant. Overall, however, Ezekiel said the city does better than a dollar-for-dollar match.

Higgins concluded by saying that if it were possible to say that the city would stick to these boundaries (as expanded), that would make her more comfortable in supporting the expansion.

Taylor mentioned that while the city has challenges in its parks system, the greenbelt millage can’t be used for maintenance of city facilities. Greenbelt millage money is just for land and the purchase of development rights. He said he would support the expansion of the boundaries.

Hieftje said he didn’t think there was ever a strict boundary presented to voters – it was always to be decided by the city council through an ordinance.

Outcome on the elimination of the boundary expansion from the proposal: The council rejected Lumm’s amendment. It had support only from Lumm and Higgins.

Higgins indicated she would like to think about stipulating a 5-year time period during which the boundaries could not expand again. Taylor made a side comment that the current council can’t tell future councils what they can do. Briere observed that since passage of the millage in 2003, it’s turned out to be 4-year increments for review. Hohnke characterized the 2007 change as an expansion with a couple of corners left out – it’s one expansion over the course of eight years, he said.

Outcome: Over a lone dissent from Lumm, the council gave initial approval to the boundary expansion and the provision for including certain properties adjacent to the boundary as eligible. Later in the meeting, the council also gave final approval to the appointment of Shannon Brines to the greenbelt advisory commission.

Hoover Mansion (University Bank) Rezoning

The council was asked to consider initial approval for altering the University Bank site plan for its property at 2015 Washtenaw Ave., known as the Hoover Mansion.

Stephen Ranzini, president of University Bank, checks his tablet during the city council's Nov. 21 meeting. Seated in a row behind Ranzini is Stuart Berry, who this year was an unsuccessful candidate for city council, running as a Republican in Ward 5.

The bank asked to revise the existing planned unit development (PUD) for the site (originally approved in 1978), allowing an increase in the total number of employees and parking spaces permitted on the parcel. The site serves as the bank’s headquarters.

The proposal includes a request to build 14 new parking spaces on the east side – behind the main building – for a total of 53 spaces on the site. The city planning commission unanimously recommended approval of the change at its Oct. 4, 2011 meeting, after the proposal had been initially submitted to the city about a year earlier.

Because the proposal is a change to the city’s zoning, it’s a change to the city’s ordinances – a process that requires a second approval by the council at a separate meeting, preceded by a public hearing.

Outcome: After brief comment from Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), the council’s representative to the city planning commission, the council voted unanimously to give the PUD revision initial approval.

Arbor Hills Crossing Site Plan, Brownfield

On the agenda was a resolution for approval of the site plan for Arbor Hills Crossing, a proposed retail and office complex at Platt and Washtenaw.

The project involves tearing down three vacant commercial structures and putting up four one- and two-story buildings throughout the 7.45-acre site – a total of 90,700-square-feet of space for retail stores and offices. Three of the buildings would face Washtenaw Avenue, across the street from the retail complex where Whole Foods grocery is located. The site would include 310 parking spaces.

Also before the council was the brownfield plan for the project, which includes $6.7 million in tax increment financing to be paid back over a 19-year period. The Washtenaw County board of commissioners will still need to sign off on the brownfield plan. County commissioners scheduled a public hearing on the brownfield plan to be held at their meeting on Jan. 18, 2012.

The city’s planning commission unanimously recommended approval of the site plan at its Oct. 18, 2011 meeting. Action had been postponed at the commission’s June 7, 2011 meeting so that the developer – Campus Realty – could address some outstanding issues with the plan.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) indicated that the brownfield committee had met and agreed the plan is appropriate. It was thoroughly vetted, she said, and would next be reviewed by the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), the council’s representative to the city planning commission, said the proposal had been reviewed by the planning commission in some detail. The developer and the attorney for the project were present at the meeting in case there are any questions, he said. The plan takes a piece of land across from Whole Foods and makes it attractive for the area, he said. It comports with the themes of the Reimagining Washtenaw Avenue initiative. He noted that the developer had to locate the bus stop on the other side of the street so that patrons of the county recreation facility could take advantage of it.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) echoed his enthusiasm for the project, saying that the area had long been underutilized. It would be a great benefit for the neighborhood and he looked forward to its arrival, he said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) reported that he’d attended the citizens participation meeting on the project and described it as very welcoming, appropriate and useful. He noted that the site had a previous plan that didn’t go anywhere – he hoped this one receives ample financing.

Outcome: On separate votes, the council unanimously approved the Arbor Hills Crossing site plan and brownfield plan.

Handbills, Newspapers

The council was asked to consider a revision to its ordinance on the distribution of handbills and newspapers that, among other things, would give residents the ability to prevent delivery of any undesired newspaper onto their porches by posting a notice expressly forbidding the delivery of a specific paper.

The ordinance revision reads, in part:

No corporation, limited liability company, or partnership and no corporate officer or director, managing member, partner, or other person shall cause to be placed any newspaper upon private property where there is a notice posted on the front door of the structure on the property that the occupant forbids the delivery of that specific newspaper. [.pdf of marked up version of ordinance]

Handbills, Newspapers: Council Postponement

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) introduced the proposed ordinance, saying that its quality of life is one of Ann Arbor’s charms. Currently, he said, it’s not permitted for a person to deposit handbills in various public places. The ordinance revision clearly extends the prohibition to the advertisers who cause the handbills to be created. Taylor went on to say that there are a good number of newspapers and newspaper-like publications that show up sometimes in people’s driveways. The ordinance revision, he said, gives residents tools to deal with that.

Noting that the text of the ordinance revision had not been available to the public in a timely way before the council’s meeting, Taylor asked his colleagues to postpone the vote.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone its initial vote on the littering and handbill ordinance revision.

Handbills, Newspapers: First Amendment Issues

Though not discussed by the council, the attempt to curb delivery of unwanted newspapers poses some interesting First Amendment issues. From the U.S. Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

According to David Hudson, adjunct faculty with Vanderbilt Law School and a scholar at the First Amendment Center, it’s conceivable to craft an ordinance preventing delivery of unwanted newspapers that doesn’t violate the First Amendment. Reached by phone, Hudson told The Chronicle that the lower courts have not necessarily been uniform in their rulings and many of the cases on such ordinances have been settled not based on the larger First Amendment issues. Hudson didn’t comment on Ann Arbor’s proposed ordinance, not having seen it.

One of the pitfalls of any such ordinance, Hudson cautioned, is the creation of content-based exclusions. Hudson explained that in First Amendment law, content-based laws are subject to strict scrutiny, which is the highest level of judicial review. And Hudson said he teaches his students the concept in part with a quote from Justice David Souter: “Strict scrutiny leaves few survivors.”

One example of a case in which a court found a law similar (but not identical) to Ann Arbor’s to be content-based, and therefore unconstitutional, came before a California court of appeals. From the opinion, which includes a description of the ordinances:

In this appeal we are asked to decide whether the City of Fresno’s municipal ordinance which restricts the door-to-door distribution of certain categories of written materials is constitutional. We are concerned with two parts of the ordinance. First, the ordinance prohibits-door-to-door distribution of advertisements and unauthorized newspapers when the owner or occupant of a residence or business has posted a sign prohibiting such distribution. Second, the ordinance prohibits door-to-door distribution of campaign materials, advertisements and unauthorized newspapers when it is reasonably apparent the previous day’s distribution has not been removed or the property is vacant. We hold both [31 Cal.App.4th 37] parts of the ordinance restrict the distribution of certain categories of protected speech and the press to the exclusion of other categories, and the City of Fresno failed to carry its burden of demonstrating a content-neutral justification for the disparate treatment. [.pdf of City of Fresno v. Press Communications, Inc. (1994)]

However, Hudson told The Chronicle that the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the basic notion that residents have the right to control, at least to some degree, the extent to which they must contend with printed matter delivered to their homes. In a 1970 case, the court ruled that citizens have the right to stop delivery via the U.S. Postal Service of material from specific senders:

But the right of every person ‘to be let alone’ must be placed in the scales with the right of others to communicate. In today’s complex society we are inescapably captive audiences for many purposes, but a sufficient measure of individual autonomy must survive to permit every householder to exercise control over unwanted mail.
…
To hold less would tend to license a form of trespass and would make hardly more sense than to say that a radio or television viewer may not twist the dial to cut off an offensive or boring communication and thus bar its entering his home. Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit; we see no basis for according the printed word or pictures a different or more preferred status because they are sent by mail. The ancient concept that ‘a man’s home is his castle’ into which ‘not even the king may enter’ has lost none of its vitality, and none of the recognized exceptions includes any right to communicate offensively with another. [.pdf of Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. (1970)]

And in a New York State Supreme Court decision, the court held that “neither a publisher nor a distributor has any constitutional right to continue to throw a newspaper onto the property of an unwilling recipient after having been notified not to do so.” [.pdf of Kenneth Tillman v. Distribution Systems of America]

House Bill on Discrimination

On the agenda was a resolution expressing the council’s opposition to a proposed Michigan state house bill from Tom McMillin, a Republican representing District 45, which includes Rochester. McMillin’s bill would amend Michigan’s Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act by declaring null and void legislation enacted by local units that expands the set of protected classes in the Civil Rights Act. [.pdf of Michigan's Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act] [.pdf of McMillin's proposed bill (HB 5039)]

The protected classes enumerated in the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act include categories based on religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, or marital status. The city of Ann Arbor’s non-discrimination ordinance adds sexual orientation, gender identity, or student status as classes of people against whom discrimination is prohibited. [.pdf of Ann Arbor's Chapter 112 non-discrimination ordinance]

So McMillin’s bill, if eventually signed into law, would nullify Ann Arbor’s Chapter 112 of the city code. The Ann Arbor city council’s resolution cites Michigan’s Constitution, which provides that ”Each such city and village shall have power to adopt resolutions and ordinances relating to its municipal concerns, property and government, subject to the constitution and law.” [.pdf of Section 22 of Michigan Constitution]

The bill has been referred to the state House judiciary committee. The 17-member judiciary committee for the state House includes 10 Republicans and seven Democrats, one of whom is Jeff Irwin (D-53), who represents a district that includes most of Ann Arbor.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) introduced the resolution, saying that she generally liked to present items that are positive. But sadly, she said, the resolution she was bringing was necessary to give a message to Lansing. She said that some in the state legislature treated the Michigan State Constitution as if it’s something they can bend at their will. Specifically, she said, the McMillin bill challenged the right of a city to establish laws of its own. It would roll back protections to groups prescribed in the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act. She added a clause at the council table that sent a copy of the resolution to Gov. Rick Snyder.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated her understanding that the issue dealt with who could receive financial benefits. Smith clarified that this resolution was different from the resolution the council had approved on Sept. 19, 2011 expressing its opposition to House Bill 4770, which would limit benefits to same-sex partners. With that clarification, Briere said the resolution had her complete support.

Mayor John Hieftje contended that in fact there is a financial aspect to McMillin’s proposed legislation – it would take further steps to drive certain people away from the state, he said, who could otherwise contribute to Michigan’s economic recovery. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked for Smith and Briere for bringing the resolution forward.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the resolution opposing House Bill 5039.

Organization of New Council

According to the city charter, the city council must elect from its members a mayor pro tem “at its first meeting after the newly elected members have taken office following each regular city election …” That meeting was Nov. 21, which was the first meeting after Nov. 14, when councilmembers who won their elections on Nov. 8 took office.

Councilmembers were given a ceremonial swearing-in at the start of the Nov. 21 meeting by city clerk Jackie Beaudry (back to camera). From left to right: Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

So at the start of the meeting, Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) were given a ceremonial swearing-in by the city clerk, Jackie Beaudry.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) moved the resolution nominating Higgins as mayor pro tem, along with the order of succession to the mayor.

Chris Easthope finished his service on the Ann Arbor city council as mayor pro tem. After Easthope left the council in 2008, going on to serve as judge on the 15th District Court, Higgins has been elected mayor pro tem each year.

The mayor pro tem acts as mayor when the elected mayor is unable to do so. When acting as the mayor, the mayor pro tem enjoys all duties and responsibilities of mayor, except that of the power of veto. With respect to other duties and responsibilities of the mayor as compared with other councilmembers, they consist largely of serving as emergency manager, making nominations to boards and commissions, presiding over meetings, and fulfilling a ceremonial function.

The mayor pro tem’s annual salary is the same as other councilmembers: $15,913. [The mayor earns more: $42,436.] Although the local officers compensation commission recommended in 2007 that the mayor pro tem be given additional compensation, the city council that year rejected that part of the commission’s recommendation.

Other than Taylor’s remark that the order of succession was seniority-based, but within that sorting “regrettably alphabetical,” the council did not engage in deliberations on the vote. Taylor’s comment likely related to the fact that he is alphabetically last among the four councilmembers who were elected for the first time in 2008 – Derezinski, Hohnke, Smith and Taylor.

The complete order of succession after Higgins is: Margie Teall (Ward 4), Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the resolution electing Marcia Higgins as mayor pro tem and approving the order of succession to the mayor.

Also on the agenda were council committee appointments for the coming year and ratification of the council rules. The committee appointments were not prepared in time for the meeting and an amendment to the rules discussed by the council rules committee just before the council meeting was not added to the agenda until just before the council meeting.

That amendment relates to the rule requiring that emails received by councilmembers on government email accounts during council meetings be produced by the city, subject to redaction under provisions of the Michigan Freedom of Information Act, and attached to the meeting minutes.

The proposed amended version of the rule would read:

Electronic communication sent and received by a member during a Council meeting shall be included in the minutes of such meeting, provided that the minutes shall not include electronic communication received by a member that clearly does not relate to the subject matter of the meeting.

During the rules committee meeting that preceded the council’s Nov. 21 meeting, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) told other committee members that he was proposing the rule because the existing rule had resulted in the inclusion in the meeting minutes of one neighbor’s nasty comments about another neighbor, which did not serve the purpose of the rule.

That purpose, said Taylor, was to provide a complete record of the kind of input the council was receiving during its council meetings. [The rule was enacted in September 2009, after requests made under the Freedom of Information Act showed that councilmembers were using their email accounts to communicate with each other – on topics that ranged from juvenile horseplay to the subject matter of the meeting, to their political campaigns. For more background, see The Chronicle column: "When's an Open Meeting Open?"]

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), chair of the rules committee, reported at the committee’s meeting that she’d received a suggestion from Jane Lumm (Ward 2) to amend the rule on agenda setting:

Council members may add items to the agenda at any time, but will use best efforts to do so prior to the Friday before the next Council meeting.

Higgins indicated that for this iteration of rule changes, she was not inclined to consider Lumm’s suggestion, which involved a requirement of a 3/4 majority vote in order to make late additions to the agenda. Higgins indicated the possibility of giving Lumm’s suggestion further review by the rules committee. She allowed that there were some agenda-setting issues that need to be addressed. She mentioned the fact that the second reading of the pedestrian ordinance was not supposed to be placed on the agenda for that night, yet had been put on the agenda, which had required its subsequent deletion.

Also during the rules committee meeting, Higgins indicated that the slate of committee appointments, which she is preparing, was not ready for perusal, because not everyone had submitted their preferences.

Council appointments will need to fill the slots that Stephen Rapundalo previously held, having lost the Nov. 8 Ward 2 election to Jane Lumm. Those include the following council committees: audit committee, budget committee, administration and labor committee, and liquor control committee. Rapundalo also served as the city council representative to the housing and human services board (HHSB) and the local development finance authority (LDFA) board.

At the Nov. 21 council meeting, Higgins announced her intent at the council’s next meeting to nominate Rapundalo to fill a different (non-council) slot on the LDFA board, which is an existing vacancy.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone ratification of council rules and committee appointments until Dec. 5.

Chilled Water

On the agenda was an item that provided permission to the University of Michigan to install chilled water facilities under Tappan Street. The long-term mechanism used to grant the permission is an “occupancy agreement.” The university and the city disagree on the question of whether the agreement grants the university an “interest in land.”

As a result, a memo from the city attorney’s office – which accompanied the resolution that the city council was asked to approve – states:

The University has insisted that the occupancy agreement be processed as a document that grants it an interest in land, even if it doesn’t. The City does not believe that the occupancy agreement grants to the University any interest in land. As drafted, it grants to the University an interest in land only to the extent it grants the University, by its terms, an interest in land. Nevertheless, in accordance with the University’s request, but with agreeing that the agreement grants an interest in land, the document is being submitted to City Council for approval with a requirement of 8 votes as if it granted an interest in land.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) questioned what this actually meant. Briefly put, assistant city attorney Abigail Elias explained that the city council was being asked to give the agreement its approval as if it were granting an interest in land to the university, even though the city did not believe it was doing that. [The Nov. 21 agenda indicated the eight-vote majority city charter requirement, which is triggered by transactions involving an interest in land.]

Part of the context for the discussion with UM on the issue, explained Elias, was other similar arrangements, including some related to the East Stadium bridges reconstruction project.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to grant permission to the University of Michigan to install chilled water facilities under Tappan Street. 

Communications and Comment

Every city council agenda contains multiple slots for city councilmembers and the city administrator to give updates or make announcements about issues that are coming before the city council. And every meeting typically includes public commentary on subjects not necessarily on the agenda.

Comm/Comm: Warming Center

Signed up as an alternate for one of the 10 reserved spots for public commentary at the start of the meeting was Orian Zakai. Priority is given to those who wish to address the council on an agenda topic, and eight people had signed up to speak about the public art ordinance, which was an agenda item, as well as two others who addressed agenda items.

Zakai and another student stayed until the end of the meeting towards midnight, when there’s another opportunity for the public to address the council. Zakai introduced herself as a PhD student at the University of Michigan, speaking on behalf of students who want to establish a 24-hour warming center. The Delonis Center, she said, has diminished capacity. [At its Oct. 17, 2011 meeting, the council allocated $25,000 of the city's general fund reserve to keep the shelter's warming center open. It's open only during evening and nighttime hours.]

Zakai described how the goal of the group is to establish a 24-hour center, so that also during the day people have a place to go to stay warm.

She said that her group already has 25 volunteers and a petition signed by 516 community members. There will be an organizational meeting on Nov. 28, she said. [The meeting starts at 8 p.m. at Cafe Ambrosia, 326 Maynard.] Her group is trying to locate a site for the warming center by December, she said, and they are looking at a property at the corner of East Huron and Division. She asked the council to support the effort.

Comm/Comm: Sustainable Community

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) reported that Washtenaw County had received $3 million for a Sustainable Communities project. He said the grant resulted in large part from the Reimagining Washtenaw Avenue corridor study that involved collaboration with four different communities – Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, and Pittsfield Township. The key for winning the grant was the collaboration and the consideration of this area as a “region,” Derezinski said.

Comm/Comm: Stadium Bridges

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she was pleased to be at the site of the groundbreaking for the East Stadium bridge reconstruction project, along with others. Details on detours can be found at annarborbridges.org, she said. She noted that Congressman John Dingell was there, as well as some federal luminaries.

Mayor John Hieftje said it was sobering to hear at that ceremony that there are bridges in worse condition than the Stadium Boulevard bridge – 14,000 in the U.S. are as bad or worse, he noted. He said that the infrastructure of the nation is in peril.

Comm/Comm: 618 S. Main

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) called everyone’s attention to a second public participation meeting at 618 S. Main, the site of the old Fox Tent and Awning facility and encouraged people to attend. [It took place on Nov. 22. For Chronicle coverage of the first meeting, on Nov. 11, see "Public Gets View of 618 S. Main Proposal"]

Comm/Comm: Medical Marijuana

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported she’d attended a presentation on Michigan’s medical marijuana law, given by Michigan attorney general Bill Schuette. [Briere is a member of the city's medical marijuana licensing board.]

Comm/Comm: Jane Lumm

Jane Lumm – who won the Nov. 8 election in Ward 2, displacing Stephen Rapundalo on the council – said she just wanted to say thanks for the nice welcome people had given her. Everyone has made her feel welcome, she said.

Comm/Comm: Sue McCormick

City administrator Steve Powers publicly congratulated the city’s public services area administrator, Sue McCormick, on her selection as the head of the Detroit water and sewerage department. He selection, he said, speaks to McCormick’s talents and abilities. Her last day, he said, would be on Dec. 16. An interim public services area administrator will be in place for Dec. 17, he said, and he would keep the council apprised of the process for a permanent replacement.

Present: Jane Lumm, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sandi Smith, Tony Derezinski, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Carsten Hohnke.

Next council meeting: Monday, Dec. 5, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!